Komisch, dass die amerikanischen Konzerne sich so für das Fußwegmapping in Europa interessieren. Die Engländer haben auch ständig Ärger mit (schlecht) organisiertem Uber-Fußwegmapping.
In Rom gab es kürzlich ein HOT-Projekt zum Gehwegmappen, an einer der (insgesamt vermutlich eher wenigen) Wohnstraßen wo es nur einseitig einen Gehweg gibt war trotzdem einer auf beiden Seiten gemappt, und Verbindungen waren eher selten gemappt, sehr viele haben einfach in der Mitte aufgehört. Insgesamt war es aber vielleicht trotzdem eine Verbesserung weil die lokalen Mapper sozusagen gezwungen waren, das alles zu fixen, und sonst hätten wir die vielleicht weitere 10 Jahre nicht explizit eingetragen.
Gibt aber immer noch viele Fragmente, ein beliebiges Beispiel in 20 Sekunden gefunden: Way: 1418354773 | OpenStreetMap
Hello everyone - I want to inform you that the Meta team has paused editing in Germany so that we can get this corrected. We will review the edits and changeset comments, and I will in be in contact in this tread. I apologize for any late replies as I was out of office, but I am fully back online today.
Diese losen Fragmente sind aber den Grenzen der einzelnen Tasks bei HOT-OSM geschuldet. Je nach Projekt wird einem mehr oder weniger wehement darauf hingewiesen bloß niemals nie nicht über die Taskgrenze hinaus zu mappen. Es würde mich deshalb auch nicht wundern, wenn die Wege an den Taskgrenzen gar nicht miteinander verbunden wurden.
Das Problem kenne ich aus anderen HOT-OSM-Projekten auch. Wenn man sich stur an die Regel hält, gibt es unvermeidlich an den Taskgrenzen Probleme. Ich habe das dadurch umschifft, dass ich mir Tasks ausgesucht habe, bei denen niemand in den Nachbargebieten zugange war und habe dann die Grenzen bei Bedarf kurz überschritten.
Dafür müsste man aber die Zuarbeitenden in Richtung Augenmaß und Sinnhaftigkeit schulen. Daran hakt es meinem Eindruck nach aber gewaltig.
First and foremost, thank you to the local community who called out any editing issues. Our mapping efforts included Hamburg + Hamburg Metropolitan Area and currently do not extend beyond these areas for Germany.
We have a spot-checking system in place to review edits made by the team. These edits had not yet reached that stage of review when the issues were raised here. However, I understand the need to immediately fix any issues through reverting. Therefore, the next effort is to update our workflow guidance based on feedback here.
With your local insight, can you please provide feedback on why these are incorrect?
- The mapper added crossing details to Way History: 588710128 | OpenStreetMap but these were removed. Does the community prefer these tags to be left off of path = crossing?
| crossing | traffic_signals | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| crossing:markings | dashes | ||
| crossing:signals | yes |
This tag is most commonly used in conjunction with crossing nodes (mainly
highway=crossingbut also e.g.railway=crossingwhen the crossing area is marked) and crossing ways (e.g.highway=footway+footway=crossing,highway=cycleway+cycleway=crossingandhighway=path+path=crossing). Key:crossing:markings - OpenStreetMap Wiki
-
The mapper had added crossing details to Way: 1462916713 | OpenStreetMap . The following tags were added by our team and then removed. Here are the images we used to verify our edit.
crossing uncontrolled crossing:markings dashes surface:colour red
As mentioned, we paused our editing in Germany and want to make sure that we address the community’s concerns. There are other points to address but wanted to start our conversation here.
- That’s not the reason for the revert. The reason is the bike path that was added on the west side of Rödingsmarkt (visualization of the changeset). Doing a full revert seemed justified given the low-effort approach of the changeset.
- The bike + pedestrian path was drawn in the wrong direction.
- There was no
oneway:bicycle=yesdespite the bike track being oneway (which is the default in Germany). - The bike track seems to be a construction site artifact, but I don’t think it extends all the way down to the junction with Beim Alten Waisenhause. Also, temporary street design features should preferably come with some kind of indication that it is a construction site artifact so that it can be updated later on (like a note + check_date). If there is no such indication, the mapping will likely remain outdated for years after construction has ended. Also, if you’re gonna map the temporary design, you might as well commit to it and remove the painted bike lane tags from the roadway.
- In short: Bike infrastructure can only be mapped with proper knowledge of it and of traffic rules, and construction site mapping should not be done when editing from afar.
- The first picture you provided is outdated, the second one gives a good idea of the current status. All markings are within the carriageway area, and as such,
crossing:markings=nois correct for the pedestrian crossing. This mistake shows a general problem with your approach: Thecrossing:markings=notag was set in February 2026 after a survey (by me). Your team overwrote that tag despite using an older source (Esri aerial imagery from 2025). (Same goes for the rest of the edits on Berner Straße/Fasanenweg/Berner Brücke.) I don’t consider that okay.
danke für diese Hintergrundinfos, da wäre ich nicht drauf gekommen, es kommt wirklich oft vor, und wenn das der Anleitung entspricht gibt es offenbar konzeptionelle Probleme. Die Daten sollten immer so gut es geht konsistent sein, einen Gehweg einfach so auf der Hälfte verhungern zu lassen halte ich nicht für konsensfähig.
@kadiwa I will propose to my team to remove cycleway MapRoulette challenges from our #walkaboutgermany project and will give you an update tomorrow.
Berner Straße nach Umbau aktualisiert Way: 1462916715 | OpenStreetMap
I see this in your changeset, and I will emphasize to the team that survey work is prioritized over remote sensing. We will propose a heuristic in cases where source=survey is not used.
I want to move forward in a way that also respects this community and the work OSM contributors like you have done. Once complete, I can share some of the updated workflow guidance for community review.
It is no problem if new users make mistakes. That’s normal and that’s manageable because their numbers and their editing volume is constant. But your current approach and the quality of your edits is no support for OpenStreetMap in Germany.
We are the community who has cared for 22 years to produce a high quality dataset. Our data is used by emergency services, police, parcel services, public transit authority (in Hamburg and elsewhere), bicycle and pedestrian routing etc.
If you arrive with 40 accounts in an area and let them map for a whole week, the volume of edits is just overwhelming. Either you ensure that these people map as good as an average experienced mapper (that’s not true for you) or you must slow down mapping to a pace which is (1) manageable for the local community to review everything and (2) slow enough that we don’t end up with 465 conflicts if we deem it necessary to revert all your edits.
Since the beginning of this thread, I myself wonder why you want to edit OSM at all. Meta is a founding member of Overture Maps. Why don’t you just use the footways from Overture?
I deeply respect the work you and others have completed. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to map with you all. As mentioned, we have stopped our mapping in the area and will update the organised editing wiki to reflect this.
We will update our internal guidance based on feedback here. If there is a need to revisit this in the future, we will reach out to key contributors beforehand.