piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2020-11-04 07:50:25+00:00): Hello,
I am validating tasks of this project and welcome you as a new mapper. Please read this welcome letter and support issues.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/TM_Welcome_Letter
As a validator we check if all mappings has been done according the instructions and are free of errors
Especially we pay attention to work by new mappers to help them to avoid errors and give guidance

The quality standards of HOTOSM are rather high. This means that a mapping must be an accurate representation of a building.

Your mappings do not always comply with that criteria.

Most buildings here have a rectangular pattern. Please follow the outlines precisely and square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit?usp=sharing

Another issue is how to map tall buildings

High buildings need to be mapped in a different  way.
Because the image has been taken under an angle you will see both the roof and a side of a building.
So the top of the building is not the place were that building actually is build on the ground.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
 See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping

Best regards and keep mapping
Frans S (2020-11-04 08:29:18+00:00): Hello,
I am validating tasks of this project and welcome you as a new mapper. Please read this welcome letter and support issues.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/TM_Welcome_Letter
As a validator we check if all mappings has been done according the instructions and are free of errors
Especially we pay attention to work by new mappers to help them to avoid errors and give guidance

The quality standards of HOTOSM are rather high. This means that a mapping must be an accurate representation of a building.

Your mappings do not always comply with that criteria.Not accurate enough and not squared.

Most buildings here have a rectangular pattern. Please follow the outlines precisely and square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit?usp=sharing

Another issue is how to map tall buildings

High buildings need to be mapped in a different way.
Because the image has been taken under an angle you will see both the roof and a side of a building.
So the top of the building is not the place were that building actually is build on the ground.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping

Best regards and keep mapping
Frans S (2020-11-04 09:38:36+00:00): Hello
See my PM about your mappings 
Please do not name buildings. Just building=yes is sufficient.
Best regards
karson_ (2020-11-04 14:25:25+00:00): Why would those road spurs deserve the tag highway=proposed? That particular road was built nearly 20 years ago. The highway=proposed k/v pair is supposed to be used for roads that have been platted, but where construction has yet to start.
amarajz (2020-11-05 06:06:06+00:00): Hi,

Since the roads are incomplete and causing ""unreachable"" and ""no outlet"" errors on OSM, I have converted them into proposed for the mean while. Please suggest us if there is any other tag that will resolve these issues and we will incorporate the same into our editing. 

Regards,
amarajz
woodpeck (2020-12-03 21:02:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 95248959 where the changeset comment is: revert erroneous boundary edits
Frans S (2020-11-04 08:24:46+00:00): Hello. See my previous comment on your mapping quality
Best regards
Frans S (2020-11-04 08:26:38+00:00): Hello,
I am validating tasks of this project and welcome you as a new mapper. Please read this welcome letter and support issues.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/TM_Welcome_Letter
As a validator we check if all mappings has been done according the instructions and are free of errors
Especially we pay attention to work by new mappers to help them to avoid errors and give guidance

The quality standards of HOTOSM are rather high. This means that a mapping must be an accurate representation of a building.

Your mappings do not always comply with that criteria, Accurate enough but not squared.

Most buildings here have a rectangular pattern. Please follow the outlines precisely and square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit?usp=sharing

Another issue is how to map tall buildings

High buildings need to be mapped in a different way.
Because the image has been taken under an angle you will see both the roof and a side of a building.
So the top of the building is not the place were that building actually is build on the ground.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping

Best regards and keep mapping
LudovicG (2023-01-07 06:56:51+00:00): Tout est autorisé :) mais il existe la clé "facebook" (ou "contact:facebook") qui semble appropriée. Page du wiki avec le namespace contact : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact:*
Frans S (2020-11-04 08:23:35+00:00): Hello,
I am validating tasks of this project and welcome you as a new mapper. Please read this welcome letter and support issues.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/TM_Welcome_Letter
As a validator we check if all mappings has been done according the instructions and are free of errors
Especially we pay attention to work by new mappers to help them to avoid errors and give guidance

The quality standards of HOTOSM are rather high. This means that a mapping must be an accurate representation of a building.

Your mappings do not always comply with that criteria.Not accurate enough and not squared.

Most buildings here have a rectangular pattern. Please follow the outlines precisely and square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit?usp=sharing

Another issue is how to map tall buildings

High buildings need to be mapped in a different way.
Because the image has been taken under an angle you will see both the roof and a side of a building.
So the top of the building is not the place were that building actually is build on the ground.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping

Best regards and keep mappings
joost schouppe (2021-05-18 14:01:55+00:00): bedankt; ik heb het nu aangeduid als landbouwgrond
joost schouppe (2020-11-04 08:52:32+00:00): -Bij Hoogeind 64 en 66 ben je gebouwen vergeten samenvoegen. Dat detecteert de validator vaak enkel als je even alles selecteert dan valideert. Bij "waarschwuingen" zeker altijd "overlappende gebouwen" controleren
-Hoogeind 100 stond er al, maar mag gewist worden volgens mij
- achter Hoogeind 106B etc staan volgens mij garages. Ook de tuinhuisjes daar zouden beter "shed" zijn dan "building=yes". Bijvoorbeeld https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/866895037/ lijkt me ook een garage.
- andere changeset, maar bij dingen als dit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/866349095/ kan je best ook landuse wat aanpassen (zodat een gebouw niet doorsneden wordt door landuse)
- tussen 102 en 104 lijkt een paadje te liggen naar de Vossenvelden. Als je te veel twijfelt, maak eventueel een Note opdat iemand gaat surveyen
Frans S (2020-11-04 09:39:30+00:00): Hello. See mY PM about mapping quality
Best regards
eggie (2020-11-04 08:58:10+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
pitscheplatsch (2020-11-07 15:49:28+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93526469
pitscheplatsch (2020-11-07 15:51:33+00:00): Sorry, I meant revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93482397

Thanks for you work!
---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
Frans S (2020-11-04 15:46:40+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project
High buildings need to be mapped in a different  way.
You can see both the roof and a side of a building.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
 See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping
jpennycook (2020-11-04 22:13:06+00:00): Hi.
The restriction will be for motor vehicles - by putting access=destination on the way, this will also restrict pedestrians, which isn't the intention.  I'll change access= to motor_vehicle= on these ways.

Jon
Christopher-0118 (2021-09-20 13:45:21+00:00): Hello! 
Thank you very much for your attention and correcting the inaccuracies of my mapping.
Laci (2021-01-24 00:39:23+00:00): Hi! Wenn du ein Gebäude einzeichnest, tagge es bitte auch mit building=yes
baum10 (2021-01-24 11:05:43+00:00): Hallo Laci,
Danke das du meinen Fehler ausgebessert hast.
Miguel Pedr (2020-11-07 15:04:26+00:00): Hola,
Aquí las direcciones dadas son incorrectas y también dar una dirección incorrecta afectará la ruta o la navegación. Tenga cuidado al asignar solo una dirección en una sola dirección.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93528115
Grand5Banks (2020-11-10 01:23:12+00:00): Hi Miguel Pedr, Thank you for letting me know about this. I added this one way because of the one way sign seen in Mapillary (taken in July: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IRrcdqPyGZ4gIOYx1myUsp). Do you think these black rectangular one way signs with white arrows are not reliable indicators of one way restrictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Mexico)? Also, are there any other resources you recommend checking to verify one ways?
Miguel Pedr (2020-11-10 03:27:59+00:00): Hola Grand5Banks,
Gracias por comunicarse, que se muestra aquí (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IRrcdqPyGZ4gIOYx1myUsp) es la indicación del lugar o direcciones de una calle y también las direcciones unidireccionales asignadas son inversas de Mapillary. También podemos ver el momento vechile viajando por ambos lados, aquí el símbolo del letrero es una indicación o información del lugar ubicado. Ponte en contacto si necesitas ayuda, estaré encantado de ayudarte.
Grand5Banks (2020-11-12 01:18:55+00:00): Hi Miguel Pedr, Thank you for sharing that Mapillary view. When I applied this one way, I was referencing the one way sign on the other side of the street (attached to the road name sign), and I thought the sign you linked was actually just for a commercial business’s location. I also try to disregard car activity seen in ground imagery and only map to official road signs. I hope that reasoning makes sense, and I appreciate your investigation.
BelKed (2022-08-19 10:27:39+00:00): Rád by som sa opýtal, čo má znázorňovať tag 
fireplace=yes na tomto bode: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8080572629?
Podľa wiki by sa nemal používať tento tag osamote – https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fireplace
Ak sa na danom mieste nachádza ohnisko, správne by to malo byť otagované ako leisure=firepit – https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=firepit
Jrachi (2020-11-07 13:19:37+00:00): You have entered some streams several times.
I corrected.
brk57 (2020-11-08 09:28:39+00:00): Tks Jrachi. And sorry...:-)  It seems to me that I did a little mess among several sessions and facing some network interruptions. I'll try to pay more attention in the next sessions.
Ciao. Stefano
Jrachi (2020-11-08 09:30:02+00:00): Grazie a te della risposta!
Buon mapping!
user_5359 (2020-11-05 18:34:26+00:00): Welcome to OSM! We didn't need a reference to the competitors.
zuicz (2020-11-04 10:08:40+00:00): nie wiem czy wiesz ale dopiero co @olo81 poprawiał te perony żeby nie miały highway=footway xD
Joseph E (2020-12-16 05:11:12+00:00): Apakah jalan raya ini sudah ditutup selama proses rekonstruksi, atau masih bisa dipakai oleh masyarakat?

Is this road closed entirely for reconstruction, or is it still possible to drive on it?
Serzhanya (2021-02-21 03:14:26+00:00): Hello. It looks like you just smoothed the previous version of the coastline, including edges that   should   be  sharp. Look:(https://osmcha.org/changesets/93530361/) - previous version is actually closer to satellite image, especially near man-made structures. Please, reconsider.
Ayerawaddy (2021-02-23 13:14:36+00:00): Hi Serzhanya, thank you for the suggestion on these scenarios! I will update my alignment method for man-made objects going further.
PT-53 (2020-11-04 13:19:55+00:00): Hallo  K33VlN,
Du hast diesen Adress-Knoten
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2613273853/history
um rund 50m nach Osten von der Danziger Straße auf diese Fahrradstra0e
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27436200/history
verschoben.
Das war wohl ein Ferhsehen, oder?
Korrigierst Du das wieder?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2020-11-04 13:20:29+00:00): PS:
Ich kann das gerne für Dich übernehmen.
PT-53 (2020-11-05 07:48:50+00:00): Hallo K33VlN, 
Du hast zwischenzeitlich die Adress-Merkmale gelöscht statt den Knoten von dem Weg zu lösen und wieder an seinen ursprünglichen Platz zurückzuverschieben. 
Ich habe Deine beiden Änderungen "zurückgesetzt", so daß der Adress-Knoten jetzt wieder an seinem Platz ist.
Grüße
Geofreund1 (2021-01-25 14:22:32+00:00): Auf dem neuen Bing Luftbild meine ich den Neubau erkennen zu können.
PT-53 (2021-01-25 14:29:34+00:00): Ja, das Gebäude auf dem Bing-Luftbild (08-10.2019) ist die neue KFZ-Zulassungsstelle (u.a.). Dieses Luftbild stand damals noch nicht zur Verfügung.
SimonPoole (2020-11-07 12:02:57+00:00): Hallo, da ging wohl etwas leicht schief bei der Bearbeitung. 

Wie ist denn die Strasse jetzt beschildert? Hat es den jetzt eine Barriere in der Mitte? Fotos wären natürlich am besten.
Gemeinde Langnau am Albis (2020-11-07 15:03:56+00:00): Nein da ging nichts schief. Es hat tatsächlich neu eine Schranke im unteren Drittel.
Dies musste zur Sicherheit des Schulweges gemacht werden. Es nutzen immer wieder LKW und Lieferwagen diesen Teil der Haldengasse als Abkürzung, obwohl nur Zubringerdienst gestattet ist.
SimonPoole (2020-11-07 15:21:18+00:00): "ging schief" die Änderung wurde von einem Mapper (der sich hätte melden müssen) rückgängig gemacht, da es tatsächlich ein Feler hatte, sprich der ganze Strasse war anscheinend als Schranke getaggt, anstatt ein neuer Punkt -auf- der Strasse.

D.h.

- neuen Punkt auf dem Weg einfügen 

- den als Schranke auszeichnen

- wichtig wenn die Schranke von Fussgänger und ev.Velofahrer passiert werden kann, sollte man das auch noch festhalten.
SimonPoole (2020-11-07 15:29:06+00:00): Upps, war kurz abgelenkt, dass hätte natürlich "..da es tatsächlich ein Fehler hatte, sprich die ganze Strasse war anscheinend als Schranke getaggt..." lauten sollen.
user_5359 (2020-11-05 18:27:55+00:00): Hello! You use four times the key building:arvhitrcture. Did you mean building:architecture? See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ZMq ...
solenoid jam (2020-11-05 18:40:19+00:00): Это ошибка в написании. building:architecture, конечно. Спасибо!
solenoid jam (2020-11-05 18:40:40+00:00): This is a misspelling. building: architecture, of course. Thanks!
solenoid jam (2020-11-05 19:21:19+00:00): fixed
geri-oc (2020-11-04 15:17:18+00:00): Ich finde deine Änderungen einfach falsch.
So ist zum Beispiel die Ausfahrt und die Warteposition in der Mittelspur nicht mehr möglich:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.01460%2C13.64433%3B51.01482%2C13.64511

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car&route=51.01480%2C13.64510%3B51.01444%2C13.64604#map=19/51.01477/13.64542&layers=N
Gruß Gerd aus Freital.
Negreheb (2020-11-04 21:40:37+00:00): Hinweis auf gestarteten Thread wäre übrigens auch nett, acuh wenn man frustriert ist. Immerhin soll er ne Chance bekommen sich zu verteidigen
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=71085
Carnildo (2020-11-05 06:27:56+00:00): I've reverted this changeset.  There's been some recent construction in the area, and even the latest imagery is outdated.
sunaman (2020-11-06 06:46:57+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for correcting the edit and providing the information about the area. Looking forward to learn more from you.

Regards,
sunaman
blackboxlogic (2020-11-05 00:16:05+00:00): FYI, you turned a stream into a path. I've fixed it now.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93534686
soundred (2020-11-05 06:42:28+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for reviewing and correcting the edit. My sincere apologies for the mistake, I've accidentally changed the tag of the stream. Will ensure not to repeat such error. Looking forward to learn more from you.

Regards,
soundred.
eggie (2020-11-04 11:56:56+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.


review:  Staat of hangt 'je aed' werkelijk op deze plaats?

MVG,
eggie
eggie (2020-11-04 13:22:56+00:00): De AED heb ik weggehaald van het kruispunt en op de ambulancepost gezet. 
Mocht die toch midden op het kruispunt geplaatst zijn laat het dan even weten.. dan plaats ik 'm terug. 

Dit was je edit http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=93535937#20/51.27003/5.71731

MVG,
eggie
UNGSC-DTLM-Ale_Zena (2021-02-16 13:26:20+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai retrouvé cette relation, composée de nombreux bâtiments, mais sans clés ni valeurs dans la relation. Je pense qu'il pourrait être annulé. Désolé pour le mauvais français.

Alessandro
aceman444 (2021-10-22 13:35:01+00:00): Zdravim, ake chyby sa tu opravuju? Urcite ako zaciatocnik neopravujte nic na objektoch, ktore ste nepridavali Vy a kde Vam editor iD hlasi nejaku chybu. Hlasenia tohto editora su casto zavadzajuce a ako zaciatocnik ich neviete posudit. Napr. zmena na https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/747811423 je chybna, v strede cesty zrejme nebude nastupiste.

Dakujem
Rado209 (2021-10-23 18:26:48+00:00): Zdravim Vás,

v tomto prípade (rok dozadu, ale pamätám si) som len označoval názov MTB trailu "Marikovský singletrack" v tejto lokalite, Max som zmenil geometriu trasy. Zástavku-nástupište som nepridával, niekto predo mnou zrejme to pripol k ceste a ja som si to nevšimol alebo neuvedomil a ostal som spätý s poslednou zmenou. V ID viac nevidim.

Na OSM som prišiel hlavne kvôli nenavigovaniu po rôznych cestách a teda 90% opravujem pripojenia ciest, povrchy podľa skutočnosti.. pridávanie ciest podľa svojich GPS trás a zvyšných 10% pridávam objekty ktoré by mal cudzinec v dedine na mape vidieť. + Pridávam tie cesty ktoré si myslím že by boli pre niekoho prospešné a nie všetky kúty dediny ktoré buď nikam nevedú alebo by nemali zmysel...
Snažím sa nerobiť po sebe viac roboty ako je predo mnou.
Neviem kedy budem braný ako nenováčik ale po niekoľko desaťtisíc úpravách ako wazer mám základnú mapársku chybovosť začiatočníka dúfam za sebou ;)

Zdar.
Rado209 (2021-11-12 11:15:27+00:00): Ospravedlňujem sa, pozrel som sa spätne na to a už vidím že "platform" sa tam pridalo po tom ako som dal aktualizovať objekt. Prevzal sa zlý návrh. Dík za upozornenie.
radiotrefoil (2020-11-04 11:56:39+00:00): Changeset comment doesn't match location
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93537160
Aleksandar Matejevic (2020-11-04 12:19:40+00:00): Sorry for that, JOSM changed the comment because I was using the scroll wheel before I clicked upload, so it picked last used one
radiotrefoil (2020-11-04 12:21:56+00:00): Cheers, thanks for the clarification
user_5359 (2020-12-11 05:40:46+00:00): Welcome to OSM! You add a way with the tag Road=Highway. This way will be not visible of the map! Our correct key is highway (for the correct value please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway).
H4N5-antw (2020-12-08 08:32:02+00:00): Dear Pieter, 
re. Way: 169678092 , looking at the wiki : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing=marked : looks like this is to be used only where there are no traffic lights; here the crossings are regulated by traffic lights ; there are several other crossings in the area which are also traffic light controlled : wonder whether this is the correct tag, for example because traffic lights cause a delay in the journey which some route planners will take into account, may then present a different journey proposal?
Pieter Vander Vennet (2020-12-21 17:37:23+00:00): As the lights are mapped as a node in this case, this shouldn't hinder any of them; I simply used the markings I could see on the aerial photography to map them.
H4N5-antw (2022-07-02 11:35:55+00:00): Waarde Pieter, 
Betreft https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17428529/history : in v.5 was dit bicycle=yes, wat in overeenstemming is met bordjes ; sinds enige tijd routeren fietsplanners mij er omheen : kunt u zien wát hier de oorzaak va nis? Vehicle=no zou niet, maar om een of andere reden is bicycle nu een grijze no geworden? 
Heb nu dan expliciet voet en fiets=yes gezet, blijft de vraag ...
Pieter Vander Vennet (2022-07-02 19:07:34+00:00): Hey H4N5,

Met vehicle=no kan dat door sommigen idd geinterpreteerd worden als 'ook geen fietsen'. 'Motor_vehicle=no' is beter, maar volgens mij eigenlijk niet nodig want al door 'highway=cycleway' geimpliceerd.

Mvg,
Pieter
H4N5-antw (2022-07-04 12:45:26+00:00): Geachte Pieter, 
Dank voor uw respons, die verontrust ; mocht u uitnodigen virtueel over mijn schouder mee te lezen in 'de Wegcode' . nieuwste editie via https://www.wegcode.be/nl/regelgeving/download/1976101105~hra8v386pu , art.2.14 stelt dat "Voertuig" : elk middel van vervoer te land, alsmede alle verrijdbaar landbouw- of bedrijfsmaterieel is , terwijl art2.16 een "Motorvoertuig" definieert als : elk voertuig uitgerust met een motor, bestemd om op eigen kracht te rijden. 

Hoe zouden wij dit in 't Engels kunnen omzetten, waar OSM zowel motor-vehicle als vehicle kent? 
Tenzij u er voor kiest dat voertuig=motor-vehicle en motorvoertuig=vehicle, verbiedt vehicle=no dan óók fietsen de toegang , de toevoeging van bicycle=yes verwoordt de uitzondering op correcte wijze ; degene die die tag verwijderde heeft daarmee een te restrictieve toestemming gegeven. 

Wat betreft uw veronderstelling dat routeerders highway=cycleway als impliciet bicycle=yes zullen interpreteren : dat blijkt in de praktijk niet het geval : zo ontdekte ik deze tag omissie. 

Dit is vooral zorgwekkend indien ik uit het bekijken van de historie van de betreffende way de indruk krijg dat nu juist degene die fiets=ja verwijderde erg actief is op het gebied van fiets infrastructuur én middels diverse initiatieven anderen in staat stelt daar aan bij te dragen ...

Met als immer vriendelijke groet, 
Hans