Hi, while acknowledging that Arpitan/Francoprovençal can be spoken in these regions, it would seem unlikely that you would know all these names 1st hand knowledge.

Could you please disclose from where or how you are sourcing these names?

gain the boundary doesn't exist anymore and has zero priority. Fixed anyway, the issue was the old boundary being geometrically incompatible with the current correct one.

There is and was a real issue with the lake itself in that part of the water area was tagged (not glued) on the admin boundaries, I've redrawn that as a fix for the municipalities for which we've fixed the admin boundaries of, but it is a latent problem for Neuchâtel itself.

Postal code boundaries are not useful in Switzerland and in general we have not mapped them. Breakage of this specific one was not unexpected as the surrounding municipality were very broken (high priority to fix) and I haven't arranged a current source for it yet.

Neither boundary actually exists anymore since many years and should simply be deleted, or at least the misleading tags removed.

Again a typo this was actually work on Mettembert.

You are jumping to conclusions.

Yes, the person doing the import added a small number of (unnamed) peaks at the time. This is weird as we had no such data and the dataset didn't include it (the relevant POI/peak data from swisstopo wasn't open data back then). Some of these peaks were later edited and relocated.

The rest were added much later, without reference to topology or the border, and the simple explanation, applying Occam’s razor, of why they were joined to border is accidental gluing.

Yes this was on purpose, as ungluing from all other non-border elements (for obvious reasons)..

The border was originally imported from swisstopo (the same source as from where we are updating it now) with no reference to peaks etc.

While legally, as in the contract between IT and CH, it might be defined with reference to peaks we would need for the peaks to be at the location used when that happened. In any case it is clear that the current location of the peaks in OSM doesn't directly define the border so it doesn't make sense to include them.

Leimbach naturally.

Because the relevant tags were empty.

Genau, und deshalb hat es nichts mit den administrativen Grenzen zu tun.

Nochmals: ob Wasserflächen zu dem Gemeindegebiet dazu gehört oder nicht wird vom jeweiligen Kanton bestimmt. Aktuell ist es so, dass im Kanton Thurgau sie nicht dazu gehören. Wie man auch leicht and den Nachbargemeinden sieht, daran halten sich sowohl die swisstopo wie auch das BfS, und auch wir.

PS: der Zonenplan ist von 2019.

Das offensichtliche Problem, dass du auf eine Quelle verweist dass du im Changeset nicht angegeben hast, mal ausser Acht gelassen: du kannst dich gerne mit swisstopo, das BfS und den Kanton Thurgau streiten., aber aktuell sind die alle der Meinung, dass du nicht recht hast.

Dieses Changeset vermischt viel zu viel verschiedene Sachen speziell wenn du gleichzeitig an Grenzen arbeitest (wie dir auch schon gesagt worden ist), und macht es schwierig genau nachzuvollziehen was du geändert hast.

So oder so, du hast die Grenzen von Gottlieben verschlimmbessert, der Rheinanteil gehört nicht zur Gemeinde, die Grenze verläuft am Ufer entlang (wie du leicht aus den verwendeten Daten von swisstopo sehen kannst).

Es gibt keine Anzeichen dafür, dass der Inhalt von standseilbahnen.ch offene Daten sind, falls du eine Erlaubnis hast sie zu nutzen dokumentiere das bitte.

Ohne vorherige Diskussion so grossflächige Änderungen zu machen ist ein Unding. Genau so wie dein vorheriger Edit.

Bei diesem ist besonders schlimm, dass man die einzelnen Änderungen auch nicht nachvollziehen kann und wieso du sie jeweils gemacht hast, da viel zu viel Gemeinden betroffen sind.

Für den ursprünglichen Import wurden die Grenzverläufe vereinfacht deshalb sind so oder so Abweichungen von swisstopos Datensatz zu erwarten.

While the licence situation is not totally clear, assuming it is the standard swisstopo open data licence you need to provide attribution (you did read the licence before you copied the data?), and our agreement with swisstopo in such cases is that we provide it on the contributors page.

PS: you would need to add the specific source to the contributors page if we do decide to keep them.

Please refrain from adding more of these routes until the community has come to a consensus. Thank you.

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/ski-routes-import/138798 for the discussion.

Fixed changeset/176707191#map=14/46.79294/6.89673

Two small things: the bfs number should be 2056 and the postal code is likely wrong too (shouldn't be set). Moutier got a new number too.