piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
PT-53 (2021-08-20 08:13:44+00:00): Ändeung path in footway ist falsch:
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423901244/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423901238/history
Bitte zurücksetzen.

Ist hier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/974791505/history
Radfahren verboten?

Verläuft dieser Feldweg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424122316/history
wirklich auf dieser Strecke?
Auf dem Bing-Luftbild (das sind die neuesten Bilder dort) verläuft der Feldweg etwas weiter nördlich!

Grüße
PT-53 (2021-08-24 05:52:46+00:00): Hallo  plitvicer,
nach Deinen Bearbeitungen in Bad Saulgau werden im QS-Tool keep right verschiedene Hinweise angezeigt:
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?lang=de&ch30=1&ch40=1&ch50=1&ch70=1&ch90=1&ch100=1&ch110=1&ch120=1&ch130=1&ch150=1&ch160=1&ch170=1&ch180=1&ch191=1&ch192=1&ch193=1&ch194=1&ch195=1&ch196=1&ch197=1&ch198=1&ch201=1&ch202=1&ch203=1&ch204=1&ch205=1&ch206=1&ch207=1&ch208=1&ch210=1&ch220=1&ch231=1&ch232=1&ch270=1&ch281=1&ch282=1&ch283=1&ch284=1&ch285=1&ch291=1&ch292=1&ch293=1&ch294=1&ch311=1&ch312=1&ch313=1&ch320=1&ch350=1&ch370=1&ch380=1&ch401=1&ch402=1&ch411=1&ch412=1&ch413=1&number_of_tristate_checkboxes=8&highlight_error_id=0&highlight_schema=0&lat=48.00625&lon=9.49548&zoom=18&show_ign=0&show_tmpign=0&layers=B0T&ch=0%2C30%2C40%2C50%2C70%2C90%2C120%2C130%2C150%2C160%2C180%2C191%2C193%2C195%2C196%2C198%2C201%2C202%2C203%2C204%2C205%2C206%2C207%2C208%2C210%2C220%2C231%2C232%2C270%2C281%2C282%2C283%2C284%2C285%2C291%2C292%2C293%2C294%2C295%2C296%2C297%2C298%2C311%2C312%2C313%2C320%2C350%2C370%2C380%2C20

Bereingst Du das oder soll ich das machen?

Fragende Grüße

PS:
Für Fragen / Anmerkungen / Rückmeldungen bitte diesen Änderungssatz aufrufen und in das leere Feld unterhalb Diskussion als neuen Kommentar eintragen.
plitvicer (2021-08-28 21:24:30+00:00): Hejhej PT-53,
hab es bereinigt. Diesmal den Haken bei "Ich möchte die Änderungen von jemandem kontrollieren" gesetzt.
Grüße
- plitvicer
serhiiku (2021-08-22 21:56:12+00:00): Дякую, візьму це до уваги.
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-19 20:39:23+00:00): hi.
i connected the path in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109953599
please use changeset comments not just "eeeeee".
DressyPear4 (2021-08-20 17:36:27+00:00): Olá nomes não devem ser adicionados em caixa alta, considere apenas a primeira letra de cada palavra em maiúsculo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109950217
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 17:42:34+00:00): This changeset looks good generally. I fixed the spelling of a park by removing abbreviations.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109950220
eggie (2021-08-19 19:28:32+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-08-19 19:32:22+00:00): Dag JeanMineur.. 
Je bedoeling is uiteraard gped.. maar.... 
 De naam hoort op de waterway=canal..  Die naam staat er al op. Ik zal de naam van het watervlak weer verwijderen.
MVG
eggie
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 18:10:45+00:00): Tell me a little more about this Riverwalk. It is a paved path along the water, right? Like a promenade? And it is signed for bike/ped access?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109950611
WRW88 (2021-08-30 18:21:47+00:00): All of that is correct. No vehicles are allowed (except for City street sweepers)
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 18:41:13+00:00): Thanks! At the Mill Street intersection, two questions: Is that ped bridge online yet? And, does the riverwalk require going across Main, across Mill, and back across Main (in a big U) or can they cross direct across Mill?
WRW88 (2021-08-30 18:44:35+00:00): Ped bridge is there, but not technically open; the project is ongoing but it will be fully open in the next two weeks. The crossing alignment is also correct as shown, there is no path beneath the Mill Street Bridge.
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 18:53:24+00:00): Got it. I will leave the bridge since it will open very soon. Does it have a real name or designation yet?

also, further down the riverwalk, where it goes under division, it looks like the riverwalk is just along the water, and the roadway goes overhead. no tunnel per se, is that right?
WRW88 (2021-08-30 18:57:36+00:00): No official name for the ped bridge yet, but it is supposed to be announced when they cut the ribbon on it. 

Your are correct about the alignment where Riverwalk goes sunder South Division Street. No tunnel.
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 19:06:49+00:00): Thanks again. Alright, this one is updated. I split it up so that the crossings have the right tags and, as a bonus, added it as a cycle route which will enhance how it shows up on sites that use OSM cycle route data: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13148453
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 19:08:00+00:00): One question I have is if this is indeed a bridge and part of the network: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2828393
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 21:11:38+00:00): Here is a good guide on all things OSM bicycle infrastructure that you will find useful in your future mapping! https://tordans.github.io/OSM-Bike-Berlin-Tagging-Guide/ (it is for Berlin, DE based on some work in Ottawa CA, but also based on the PeopleForBikes Standard that evolved some years ago)
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-19 21:32:40+00:00): Why edit in Serbia and then in Germany?
Why do people keep doing this?
Please don't do it anymore.
ingwertee (2021-08-19 21:40:34+00:00): Hi Hanan, could you please explain what's wrong with my edit(s)?
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-19 21:47:30+00:00): you edited in Germany and in Serbia to create a big changeset that surrounds almost the entire Austria.
this is bad to do because then this changeset ends up in the history of Austria.
this changeset didn't edit much, just 2 parkings meaning that this changeset should not be this big.
that all i can explain.
ingwertee (2021-08-19 21:57:10+00:00): I am not familiar with the concept of a 'changeset' opposed to the individual changes. It seems to me that the App StreetComplete chose to submit my contributions this way. Is it worth to report this to its developers?
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-19 22:11:22+00:00): its already been reported.
check the discussion
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109536462
erickdeoliveiraleal (2021-09-01 19:58:11+00:00): you created this relations, this is like a collection of many relations, i dont think this make sense.
AngocA (2021-09-03 02:24:57+00:00): I created this parent relation to have a simple way to get all Colombian relations, and maintain all of them in a single place (borders, regions, departments, provinces, municipalities). The boundaries are easily and commonly modified and disconnected. This relation does not have any visible element, and the parent/super relations do not have guidelines in the Wiki. Probably, it does not make sense, but it helps a lot to analyze all other relations in Colombia by just downloading one element in JOSM.
mueschel (2021-08-28 11:55:56+00:00): Hi,
could you check this?
Should it be 'step_count = 19'?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/974799635
PT-53 (2021-08-20 06:46:45+00:00): Hallo  plitvicer,
Du hast an diesen Wegabschnitten
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/501795779/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243555656/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27484676/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38188028/history
das Merkmal
highway=path
abgeändert auf
highway=footway
Warum? Dort dürfen doch auch Radfahrer fahren. Somit war path die korrekte Highway-Einstufen.
Wiki:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dpath
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dfootway

Bitte nimm Deine Änderungen wieder zurück.

Dürfen auf diesem Parkplatz
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/974801633/history
wirklich auch "Fremde" parken?

Grüße
brust84 (2021-08-19 20:11:31+00:00): Hallo zmoliu. Laut Wiki ist cuisine:kebab schon das korrekte Tagging für Döner Kebab.
LG
Dodko (2022-02-14 22:15:01+00:00): Pre dom smútku používajte značku
amenity=funeral_hall
namiesto amenity=place_of_worship

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfuneral_hall

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:amenity%3Dplace_of_worship
Nakaner (2021-08-24 08:53:32+00:00): Hallo,

in dieser Gegend gibt es zwei Nutzer, die zahlreiche Wege als Privatweg gekennzeichnet und/oder gelöscht haben. Du hast kürzlich einige der gelöschten Wege neu gemappt (wir nennen das auch Remapping).

Eine genauere Analyse ihrer Beiträge hat erhebliche Zweifel an ihrer Zuverlässigkeit aufkommen lassen. Ich habe das Gefühl, dass deren Beiträge sehr ich-zentriert waren und im Konflikt mit dem Betretungsrecht im Wald und der freien Feldflur (das schließt auch das Radfahren ein). Deshalb habe ich vorerst all ihre Beiträge rückgängig gemacht.

Ich habe versucht, dein Remapping so gut es geht, mit den wiederhergestellten Wegen zusammenzuführen. Könntest du dennoch bitte noch einmal einen Blick auf die von dir geänderten Objekte (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=109951711) werfen und schauen, ob mir irgendwelche Fehler unterlaufen sind?

Falls du nützliche Informationen oder gar Fotos der Örtlichkeit hast, die das (Nicht-)Vorhandensein von Verbotsschildern belegen, würde ich mich freuen, wenn du mir diese zukommen lassen könntest. Du kannst sie auch zu Mapillary hochladen (wir dürfen das als Quelle für OSM nutzen).

Siehe auch: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110123245

Viele Grüße

Michael
Nakaner (2021-08-24 08:54:34+00:00): Übrigens, bitte gib beim Hochladen einen aussgekräftigen Änderungssatzkommentar an, damit andere Mapper deine Beiträge nachvollziehen können. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
Glitch-Hunter (2021-08-24 13:06:54+00:00): ja ich versuch mein bestes zugeben 
das waldstück werd ich nochmal Überarbeiten müssen.

der Server weiß was ich für änderung gemacht habe. Die daten sind ja da (änderung)
dann brauch ich ja nicht doppelt diese Informationen hinzufügen.
Eig. ist das nur ein darstellungs Problem

schade das die Fotos von Komoot nicht zur verfügung stehen.
Komoot bedient sich der OSM / gibt aber nix zurück **voll hass
zb. Fotos/GPX Tracks/Kommentare

Mapillary ich muss mal eine möglichkeit finde wo ich nicht 24h den Pc laufen lassen muss.
(Pi + Terminal vlt.)
scheiße das die jetzt zu Facebook gehören

was ist eigentlich mit dem Lidar Scan Daten Von Niedersachsen 
Die Daten gibt es.
Nakaner (2021-08-24 20:18:19+00:00): Hallo,

zu den Komoot-Fotos: Wir (FOSSGIS e.V.) hatten Komoot dieses Jahr mal vorgeschlagen, die Fotos als Datenquelle für OSM freizugeben. Das wurde abgelehnt, weil man sich von den Nutzern nur die tatsächlich erforderlichen Rechte (und nicht wie Facebook eine Universal-Allzweck-Lizenz) geholt hat.

Zu Mapillary: Du musst nicht deine gesamte Wandertour/Mappingtour hochladen. Manchmal sind Bilder ausgewählter Standorte ok. Es geht aber auch, wenn du Fotos problematische Stellen einfach bei dir lokal speicherst und man dich im Einzelfall (hoffentlich nie) darum bitten muss.

Zu Open Data: Es gibt in Niedersachsen mittlerweile offene Geodaten. Ich weiß leider nicht, ob Laserscanning-Daten auch dazugehören. Wir dürfen sie nach derzeitigem Stand nicht nutzen, da die Datenlizenz Deutschland eine Namensnennung bei jeder – auch indirekten Nutzung – verlangt. Wir selbst verlangen aus Gründen der Praktikabilität von den OSM-Datennutzern (z.B. Komoot) jedoch nicht, die 19875 Datenquellen einzeln direkt neben der Kartendarstellung aufzulisten.

Viele Grüße

Michael
Markus366 (2021-09-06 10:47:54+00:00): Das Imfpzentrum wechselt hierher zurück. Ich habe den CS zurück gesetzt.
ovruni (2021-08-19 20:35:49+00:00): Hola, he notado que en varios de sus conjuntos de cambios se han agregado parques que no cumplen con el criterio de verificabilidad [0], por lo que han sido retirados, lo mismo que varios de los parques que usted había ingresado en el 2020.
Si tiene alguna duda sobre el mapeo de OSM en Perú puede hacerla por el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe 
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Verificabilidad
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-19 20:31:29+00:00): hi.
i removed a building that you added
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/974803966
in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109953316
because it overlapped other buildings.
László Telavarro (2021-08-19 20:23:34+00:00): Ich bitte Sie AutoKorrektur zu entschuldigen  die spinnt manchmal.
gscholz (2021-10-14 04:35:26+00:00): Hi JoseRoulet8,
this changeset has destroyed the boundary relations of "San Sebastián", "Santa Cruz Muluá" and has interrupted Río Samalá:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-91.80283&lat=14.46421&zoom=11

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=109952107

Can you please fix this?
Kind Regards
Guido
gscholz (2021-11-01 09:05:33+00:00): Hi JoseRoulet8, 
this error still exits, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 19:31:47+00:00): This edit looks generally good. The one feedback I'd have is to make it so that the greenway lanes are added as a tag on the street, rather than a separate way, just like with Lake Street
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109952138
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 20:08:48+00:00): This changeset has been reversed by the author in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110478409 thus fixing the issue. Thanks!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109952343
ElliottPlack (2021-08-21 03:44:15+00:00): Hi there, appreciate the efforts here to add bicycle lanes and infrastructure around Salisbury, but this is not the way to do it. There are a couple of issues here. One, the cycleway should be tagged on the same roadway as the roadway--you should not ever create a new "way" for a cycleway unless it is a physically separated lane, like a buffered bike lane. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway

You will need to revise or remove all of these bike lanes.

Second, in OSM, we never abbreviate anything. Road names and lane names (if they are really named) should have their full spelled out name.

Third, it is improper and disruptive to other mappers to use a generic comment like "general transportation updates" in the comment. Each changeset should have a unique comment, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
ElliottPlack (2021-08-30 20:15:51+00:00): These bicycle lanes just need to be added to the street as a lane and this will be good to go.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109952559
SafetyIng (2021-08-20 08:38:58+00:00): Ist das eine einzele Garage oder sind das mehrere (mietbare)? 
Ist mir nur so aufgefallen, denn für das zweite gäbe es noch building=garages
TheHosch (2021-08-20 11:19:39+00:00): Stimmt, ist geändert.
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-19 20:34:42+00:00): hi.
please use meaningful changeset comments.
"sdd" is not helpful.
txemt (2022-03-02 19:41:37+00:00): Why did you make Success Blvd a service road?
DeeeSeee (2022-03-02 20:06:20+00:00): Because the primary buildings along that road are businesses or educational institutions (i.e. non-residential). I guess it could be classified as a "Minor/Unclassified Road".
txemt (2022-03-02 20:13:29+00:00): A service road isn't really a road for navigation. That's more inline with roads for parking lots, businesses, driveways, alleys, etc.

I upgraded them to residential roads, as I'm not fan of unclassified roads.
DeeeSeee (2022-03-02 20:23:30+00:00): I can see your point that service roads aren't normally used for navigation, but it doesn't meet any part of the definition of a residential road (in a residential area, for access to a residential area, not normally used as through routes).
txemt (2022-03-02 20:25:27+00:00): I use residential road more as the lowest default of a road classification. Unclassified roads have slowly become obsolete in the US.
MikeN (2022-03-03 11:54:44+00:00): There's been some discussion of eliminating one of the road categories in the US, but unclassified is still commonly used in industrial or sparsely populated areas
Frans S (2021-08-20 12:49:16+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this task.
A remark.
Rectangular buildings has to be squared. See the task instructions.
Please square all rectangular buildings with the Q key of the iDeditor. A remark here. When your corners are not close enough to the 90 degrees angle the Issue triangle on the right hand menu don't react so try to map more precise and close to the 90 degrees corners
See this picture (example) Review own work in iDeditor.jpg
Did you have seen these pages ?
https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/
Best regards and success with future mappings
hesdrib (2021-08-20 12:54:59+00:00): PICC data is not always accurate
 
	Rue de Buay, 8 ...
AgusQui (2021-08-20 19:48:40+00:00): Estos puentes aún no están habilitados. Por favor recordá que Openstreetmap mapeamos la realidad, si no tienes la información de primera mano no debes incluirla hasta confirmarla. Yo paso seguido por aquí, así que voy a actualizarlo cuando esté habilitado.
DENelson83 (2021-08-20 07:00:56+00:00): It's actually the community that has been renamed, not the stream itself.
joel56dt (2021-08-20 15:52:56+00:00): I believe it is both the community and the stream that are renamed.

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/73741.html

I couldn't find any nodes on the map for the community so didn't change the community name. I didn't want to assume where the community is so didn't add a new node either.
DENelson83 (2021-08-20 16:16:53+00:00): The community in question is here.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11518212
joel56dt (2021-08-20 18:16:58+00:00): Different things
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands
vs
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dhamlet

https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/73722.html

If someone with local knowledge wants to add the place tag, they can. I just don't have the knowledge to do so.
danieldegroot2 (2021-08-19 21:03:38+00:00): *and removed invalid building.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-01-28 10:36:18+00:00): reverted
AngocA (2023-01-29 01:17:25+00:00): Discussed at: https://github.com/OSMLatam/pow/issues/15
Axelos (2021-09-20 17:17:28+00:00): Bonjour,

Est-ce que la modif a amélioré le routage sur ton outil ?

Logiquement puisque l’info est redondante il ne devrait pas avoir d’amélioration. Il est probablement que le service ne te fasse pas passer par ici car y a été décrit la qualité du revêtement (qui est très mauvais).

Bien cordialement, Axel.
LudovicG (2025-11-30 19:13:31+00:00): Bonjour,
Concernant le node/9021216633, je pense qu'il s'agit plutôt de amenity=letter_box avec post_box:type=community (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Dletter_box)
N'étant pas sur place, je ne peux pas le confirmer. Avez-vous vu une boîte jaune parmi les privatives (avec son code A0A0A0) ?
Axelos (2021-09-20 17:11:15+00:00): Bonjour Léo de Nancy;

Même si ce n’est que du marquage, il s’agit bien d’une piste et non pas une bande cyclable.
Les bandes cyclables sont justement discontinues.

Peux-tu rééditer ?

Bien cordialement, Axel.
skifans (2021-08-28 23:10:22+00:00): Hi,
This is about the change with traffic running one way along Pinstone Street and no longer being able to turn onto  Furnival Gate right? If so I know from using them that some routes (81, 82, 88) are now running along Arundel Gate instead. Do you know if its the case for all of them? I'd be happy to move the ones I know to fix them if useful.
Alex_457 (2021-08-28 23:16:55+00:00): I haven't had a reply from TSY so if you could change the ones you know that would be great. I don't know if they all have been moved to Arundal Gate. I can see on the PDF of the changes that some have been moved to other streets but I don't want to use that information without permission.
skifans (2021-08-28 23:37:46+00:00): Ok - might be worth having a look at traveline data? Thats open government licence bus the OSM wiki does still say a case by case basis, I can't find if anything has been done with it before but could be worth asking the data working group about it. Shame about TSY.

I've done the 88 at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110396453 - I'll probably do the others later when I've got time to update them to PTV2
PT-53 (2021-08-20 06:31:28+00:00): Hallo plitvicer,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz u.a. den Stadtbach - anhand des Luftbildes - überarbeitet, ohne vorher den Luftbild-Versatz zu korrigieren.
Bitte schaue Dir Deine Änderungen nochmals - nach Korrektur des Luftbild-Versatzes - an.

An diesem Gebäude
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/480672126/history
hast Du die Adresse ergänzt. Diese war aber bereits an diesem Knoten eingetragen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4737716381/history
Jetzt ist die Adresse in OSM doppelt vorhanden. Bitte lösche Deinen Eintrag wieder.

Grüße

PS:
Für Fragen / Anmerkungen / Rückmeldungen bitte diesen Änderungssatz aufrufen und in das leere Feld unterhalb Diskussion als neuen Kommentar eintragen.
MxxCon (2021-08-21 05:21:15+00:00): Hello.
Rather than deleting the old feature and creating a new one, you could've simply add "area=yes" tag and achieve the same result while preserving the feature's history. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/109955716
BCNorwich (2021-08-20 07:35:05+00:00): Hi,
A tree row would not likely be directly on top of and joined to a ditch it might be slightly to one side and not joined. It's also unlikely that gates would be directly joined to ditches, a gate might be joined to a bridge on a track or path going over a ditch.

Please try to avoid joining area outlines to the center lines of highways.

Does the path Way: 40592439 go through the gate Node: 9021351750? If so they ought to be joined together so the gate is a barrier to the path.

Regards Bernard.
Gazer75 (2021-10-05 18:51:26+00:00): Please revert the Bergen light rail back to its original tag. It is not a tram as it is fully signaled and on dedicated track for most of the line.
Gazer75 (2021-10-05 19:51:05+00:00): And please do not mess with access tags if you do not know how they work in Norway. Agnes Mowinckels gate has a sign forbidding general motor vehicles except buses. the access=no tag is not used here unless its forbidden for all traffic modes. You effectively blocked walking and biking on the road.
mikkolukas (2021-10-08 14:49:38+00:00): It is still a tram for all the parts I have mapped - also where it runs in it's own traché along the road.

The main difference is where it crosses the street.

A tram would be part of a normal highway junction (you know, red-yellow-green lights for other vehicles).

A light_rail would require railway crossings more akin to what you see on "real" railways: Blinking red lights (and maybe a bell/sound signal and maybe lift barriers).

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dtram
and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dlight_rail

Just because it maybe is called a light rail in daily speak, it have nothing to do with how it should be tagged.

The route running on the tracks could fine be light_rail, but the tracks themselves must adhere to signaling-/crossing-types etc.

You find a good example of tram/light_rail tagging here:
https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?style=standard&lat=56.19185431153937&lon=10.218915939331055&zoom=13

Same place in openstreetmap:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?style=standard#map=13/56.1919/10.2189
mikkolukas (2021-10-08 14:55:57+00:00): For the access mode:

But you still left
foot=use_sidepath
bicycle=use_sidepath
- they effectively blocks foot and bicycle the same way as access=no.

I assume the law states that foot and bicycle MUST use the provided cycleways/sidewalks, when they are available, right?
mikkolukas (2021-10-08 15:19:14+00:00): A lot of highways in Norway uses access=no without being closed for ALL traffic.