piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Komadinovic Vanja (2022-10-09 19:52:26+00:00): Da da, to mi je ok. Al ti si i za ovaj vidikovac kod Hebe stavio da se zove Paljba, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5984343275 ?
LuleWalker (2022-10-09 19:59:41+00:00): Taj kod Hebe nema ime. Skinuću mu name atribut.
Komadinovic Vanja (2022-10-09 20:00:48+00:00): Dogovor!
mariotomo (2021-10-04 01:14:56+00:00): hola, gracias por mapear Panamá. revisando tus contribuciones, veo algo raro que ya estaba, y ahora se evidencia: un highway=track a que sólo se llega con un highway=path.  qué opinas?
risturiz (2021-10-04 01:32:31+00:00): Actualmente estoy usando highway=path de forma automática para todo lo de Strava ( algo genérico y lo prefiero antes que unknown)... Entiendo que existirán vias donde como mencionas el tag correcto es highway=track pero como no soy de la zona eso lo dejo a los locales... Espero que no sea un problema, simplemente mapeo y cierro notas de vias sin modificar tanto el mapa.
mariotomo (2021-10-04 01:34:56+00:00): Ah, ok, entiendo y me parece bien. Saludos y gracias de nuevo.
risturiz (2021-10-04 01:38:12+00:00): No hay problema :-) Saludos.
Gianfranco2014 (2021-10-04 08:22:37+00:00): è giusto il nome "BVajo"? controlla. grazie. ciao
Gianfranco De Rose (2021-10-05 14:30:26+00:00): No errore ortografico. Già corretto.
Ne approfitto per complimentarmi per l'accuratezza con cui hai tracciato i vaj dello Zevola
Gianfranco2014 (2021-10-05 16:37:06+00:00): Grazie, ma anche tu non scherzi, in fatto di accuratezza, il problema è avere i dati, poi, per mappare non è difficile. Tu i nomi dei vajj che hai messi dove li hai presi? per curiosità. Grazie
Gianfranco De Rose (2021-10-05 18:14:38+00:00): Debbo fare ancora una pò di esperienza a mappare avendo Iniziato da Poco. Faccio meno fatica ad localizzare gli elementi essendo Alpinista incallito delle Piccole Dolomiti. I nomi dei Vaj con anche le traccie li prendo da due bellissimi libri di Tarcisio Bellò che ha fatto a mio avviso la migliore opra che ho mai comprato e se ti piacciono i Vaj ti consiglio di comprare se non c'è li hai. Casa editrice "La Serenissima". Se hai bisogno di qualche zona ti mando qualche pagina scannerizzata
Gianfranco2014 (2021-10-05 20:02:52+00:00): Grazie della dritta, me lo compero di sicuro, spero di trovarlo. Sono appassionato di montagna e di storia dei nostri posti(Piccole Dolomiti). Se ti serve aiuto per mappare, chiedi pure.
Sandal man (2021-10-04 11:22:38+00:00): Lo siento, pero estás dibujando dos caminos uno encima del otro aquí, por supuesto que no es posible. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989169472
También preste atención a los errores que indica la identificación 
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway 	1
danieldegroot2 (2021-10-20 11:00:02+00:00): Beste Tilia,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989171904/history
natural=sand wordt alleen gebruikt bij los zand, niet voor bouwgrond (landuse=construction)/braakliggende grond (landuse=greenfield\brownfield)/compact of kunstmatig zand (surface=sand\compacted\...).

Kijk je nog even?

Groet,

Daniel
Tilia_J (2021-10-21 18:30:37+00:00): Beste Daniel,

Voorzover ik kan beoordelen is dit perceel (voormalige kwekerij Oranje Nassau's oord tot en met 2019 grasland geweest en rond 2020 in gebruik geweest als een soort grond- of bouwdepot (voor de nieuwbouw van het verpleeghuis. (?) )

Voorjaar 2021 was het door mij als natural=sand gemarkeerde stuk als het ware "opgeschoond" en zijn de stalen rijplaten weggehaald.

Met opgeschoond bedoel ik afgegraven tot het oorspronkelijke maaiveld en op de Veluwe is de ondergrond zand. Vandaar ook mijn keuze natural=sand.

Er ligt nu dus een zandvlakte en mij is niets bekend over bouwplannen.

Als deze grond een bouwbestemming heeft (lijkt me sterk in Natura200 gebied) heeft dan kan het inderdaad getagged worden als landuse=brownfield.

Maar ik weet niets van de feitelijke situatie van na april 2021. Wellicht heb jij meer info?

Groet Tilia
danieldegroot2 (2021-10-21 19:30:00+00:00): Grond/materiaaldepot kan ook in bouwgrond meegenomen worden wanneer dit het geval is. Je had het dus met landuse=construction kunnen duiden.
Ik neem aan dat dit weer grasland wordt. Het blijft in ieder geval geen zandvlakte (en wordt zeker geen stuifzand). Tot het weer 'natuurlijk' is geworden kan het natural=sand veranderd worden in surface=sand (en note), of weggehaald worden (compacte\'kunstmatige' ondergrond door recent gebruik). We hebben naast disused:/abandoned: met landuse=construction/brownfield geen tags voor terrein waar geen bouw op bezig is maar wat wel recent in gebruik was.
Je kunt dan het best wachten op de nieuwe luchtfoto's of het zelf surveyeren.
Tilia_J (2021-10-21 20:14:33+00:00): Gezien je reactie ben je evenmin op de hoogte van de toekomstige bestemming van het perceel.

Dus je openingsopmerking "natural=sand wordt alleen gebruikt bij los zand" is de correcte manier van taggen voor wat sinds April '21 de feitelijke situatie is.

Immers: Door een mechanische ingreep:

a. Zijn alle kenmerken van enige vorm van landuse verwijderd (afgraven tot de natuurlijke ondergrond, in dit geval zand).
b. Perceel teruggekeerd naar het eerste successiestadium van natuurlijke vegetatie: onbegroeid.

Ik heb net als jij het wiki goed doorgenomen en behalve een verschil van inzicht / interpretatie is natural=sand een - toegegeven - wat ongelukkige keuze bij gebrek aan wat anders:

landuse=construction: An area of land being built on. Dus geen bouw- of gronddepot
surface=sand Is een secundair kenmerk waarbij voor het perceel geen primaire tagging vast te stellen is. Enkel iets taggen met surface is zinloos
Brownfield is niet van toepassing: Brownfield is a land scheduled for new development which was previously used for industrial purposes or some commercial uses.
Greenfield weten wij niet: The greenfield describes land scheduled for new development where there have been no buildings before.
Landcover=sand: This proposed tag is very rarely used for areas covered by sand.
natural=desert......
danieldegroot2 (2021-10-23 20:12:40+00:00): Ik geef je geen ongelijk, je mag het van mij zo houden. Uiteindelijk wordt het wel aangepast als iemand wat nieuws te melden heeft.
Frans S (2021-10-04 11:51:09+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped. Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112042503
Davileci (2026-06-16 06:11:28+00:00): Note that name:pt is useful when object has names specified in more than one language, including name:gl.
In cases where multiple languages are tagged for a name, the local-language name tag should be duplicated with the language-specific sub-key.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:36:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
SekeRob (2021-10-03 17:34:41+00:00): Also named various streets per directin and corner signs, lanes, asphalt, many lit. Destinations/directions.
ScantLeopard336 (2021-10-12 03:03:02+00:00): Hi there, and welcome to OSM!

I've had to revert your changesets, as they deleted several roads through the area due to removing the highway= or aeroway= tags from ways. This also made other roads inaccessible if someone was looking for directions, as the roads they were connected to were no longer tagged as roads. Additionally it appeared you may have left some personal information on the map, so the revert deleted that to help protect your privacy.

If you have any questions, feel free to reply in this discussion. I can assist you in mapping what you were trying to work on.

Happy Mapping,
ScantLeopard336
VictorIE (2021-12-18 23:52:22+00:00): Supermarket merged with post box: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/189966749/history
b-unicycling (2021-12-20 10:32:53+00:00): oops, sry, I fixed it now
VictorIE (2022-06-26 23:07:37+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95374187

Comment from danieldegroot2 about 3 hours ago
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6068474211/history
has since been likely duplicated by
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9142685792/history

Feel free to (re)move/place where the node should be. I don't think keeping them split would be needed.
aceman444 (2021-10-03 22:41:51+00:00): Zdravim, nejake popisy sad zmien prosim.

Tiez prosim uvadzajte zdroj vasich zmien. Vnotorne chodby na Ortofotomozaike nevidite.

A ten koridor sa asi nenazyva NC Nivy.
eggie (2021-10-03 18:32:04+00:00): Hi mapper74..
I merged the info with the addressnode.
Greetz,
eggie
VA00 (2025-01-06 17:46:10+00:00): Co to w ogóle znaczy? Na tabliczce wyraźnie pisze: ROK BUDOWY: NIEZNANY. To jaki format jest poprawny? Czemu tag został skasowany w całości a nie poprawiony lub przeniesiony do description/note?
cytryn (2025-01-10 13:00:18+00:00): Oj, byłoby łatwiej jakbyś napisał o który obiekt chodzi w tym zestawie. Niepoprawny format daty oznacza, że jest niezgodny z wytycznymi ustalonymi w: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:start_date Sposób zapisu dat jest dość jasno określony i daje szerokie pole do zastosowania, nawet wówczas, kiedy określa się go w sposób przybliżony.
Jaką informację wnosi dla użytkownika zapis typu "nieznany"? IMHO żadnej, a zwłaszcza takiej, dla której przewidziany jest klucz start_date/opening_date.
Jakby się bardzo uprzeć, to można niby to wrzucić do description/note - jeżeli faktycznie jest to dostępne w opisie na miejscu, to przynajmniej nie będzie sprawiało wrażenia błędu. Bez tego samo tagowanie start_date=nieznany, sprawia takie samo wrażenie jak np. name=brak_nazwy.
Inna sprawa, że nawet wrzucenie tej informacji do description nie wciąż nie wnosi żadnej istotnej informacji. Taki zapis możnaby dodać pewnie do 90% obiektów na mapie.
VA00 (2025-01-10 15:44:34+00:00): Ale tu nie jest tak, że rok budowy jest nieznany, tylko że podano rok budowy "NIEZNANY". Coś jak "Sure, Not" z Idiokracji :-)

Wrzuciłem całą inskrypcję:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7099562239

Dokładnie tak wyryto na kapliczce: "ROK BUDOWY: NIEZNANY".
aachso (2021-10-04 09:31:39+00:00): Hello Lurch5 and welcome to OSM!

More specific access tags (such as foot=x, bicycle=x, …) are redundant when they have the same value as the access=x tag. Could you have a look at your changes in Lichtenbusch and remove those tags, keeping only access=x?

Thanks!
Strubbl (2021-10-04 14:43:57+00:00): Hi Jan, könntest du den Poller als Eigenschaft von der Straße entfernen und dafür einen eigenständigen Punkt hinzufügen? Dieser Punkt kann dann genau diese Eigenschaft haben. Im Moment ist es so gemappt, dass die ganze Straße ein entfernbarer Poller ist.
jleedev (2021-10-07 14:48:06+00:00): Mass deletions like this continue to be an inappropriate way to map.
NorthwestPAmapper (2021-10-08 18:11:26+00:00): Thank you.
◪ Jarv (2021-10-04 13:46:43+00:00): Hi Mrs Meisty.
I've had a look on WSCC's website and there is no mention of a closure on this public footpath (WSx/168). What do you mean by it is "no longer available as a footpath"? Is it just overgrown/ploughed or are there notices saying it is closed?
MrsMeisty (2021-10-04 13:54:57+00:00): We tried walking it yesterday and it is now a ploughed field with no clear pathway through it. I didn't know the name of the path but when I looked on WSCC's website, I thought I'd found it, and it said it was unavailable (Ford
Affected route: Path number 200/4 - Closed from Ford Road (SU 000 036) to south of 'Conifers' (SU 998 035)
Reason: This path is a continuation of a previously extinguished path and runs to the middle of a field.) Apologies for the misinformation but once you get to the mobile home estate, you are in a field.
◪ Jarv (2021-10-04 16:33:18+00:00): So Path number WSx/200 section 4 ran from Ford in a SWW direction and is not the path from Church Lane to Climping Bridge.
Public Footpaths are sometimes indistinguishable on the ground, especially when they go across fields where farming may visually remove the path. However legally the footpath is still there as such I'll add some tags onto the path to show this.
Thanks for flagging this up
Morten Lange (2021-10-04 20:20:48+00:00): Takk :-)
MxxCon (2021-10-03 23:11:37+00:00): Hello.
If bikes are not allowed in the cemetery, should it be "=dismount" or "=no"?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112045016
wilfisher (2021-10-09 00:27:41+00:00): updated - thanks
Dimitar155 (2021-10-09 06:45:38+00:00): Hi ignisf,

Everything looks fine expect for the "brand:wikipedia" tag which should be just "wikipedia".

Regards,
Dimitar155
38446 (2021-10-05 18:56:49+00:00): I do not see a reason for deleting this path. Tagging it with the appropriate smoothness tag, as you yourself did 2 weeks ago, was entirely appropriate.
psmr (2021-10-06 11:49:37+00:00): i have been there some days ago and have seen that there is no such a way; that is the reason for deleting it; I added an other way that really exists there; have you seen the situation by yourself or what is the reason for your comment?
38446 (2021-10-06 15:19:58+00:00): Yes, the condition of this path varies. After rain it's worse, sometimes it gets cut; sometimes more people used, at other times not so many. Maybe add informal=yes and/or trail_visibility=bad instead of deleting it.
psmr (2021-10-06 20:46:47+00:00): feel free to add the way by yourself; in my opinion it makes no sense to map ways that do not exist rsp. are not visible... especially in nature environment.
englu (2021-11-10 16:50:33+00:00): Czy remontowana ul. Krakowska jest zamknięta również dla ruchu pieszego?
chesterwalker (2022-03-05 21:45:55+00:00): Hi, what source are you using to change these road names? For Boughton (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202355797/history & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/680370395/history) and Tarvin Road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1818987/history & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/21007141/history & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/483305651/history), this changeset contradicts information from both road signs and addresses in the area based on local knowledge. I think "Watling Street" can be tagged as the name of the route of the Roman road which follows Foregate Street, Boughton, Tarvin Road, Vicars Cross and continues on to Whitchurch. It is not an appropriate "name=" for any of the constituent parts as it is not the primary name as displayed on street signs or used in modern addresses. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name
Based on both road signs and addresses, I agree with the change of name from Tarvin Road to Vicars Cross Road east of the bridge over the canal (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/187024826/history).
chesterwalker (2022-03-06 10:37:18+00:00): Correction: the route of Roman Road "Watling Street" is from Chester to Northwich (not Whitchurch as per my previous comment).
To clarify, this is different from other routes also called "Watling Street" in the UK, e.g. the better known route from Dover to Wroxeter following the route of the modern A2 & A5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watling_Street#Other_Watling_Streets
More information on the Cheshire Watling Street is here: http://www.romanroads.org/gazetteer/cheshire/M7a.htm
TheBestIdea (2021-10-07 15:49:51+00:00): Do you have any insight into the existence/route/status of the ped/bike path that is supposed to be part of the new bridge? The project website says it's on the east-bound roadway. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt7wittpenn/ From the 2007 proposed alignment diagram (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt7wittpenn/pdf/proposedalignment.pdf), I *think* I can make out a sidewalk going from Fish House Rd (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9142932734) to Newark Ave (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8255455733) along the south side of the bridge/ramps, but I'd like some additional confirmation before implementing it. 
Also from that same diagram, I think this segment of Fish House Rd might be two-way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989196234
Let me know what you think!
-Brandon
BMACS001 (2021-10-07 20:13:12+00:00): I don't know any more than you do, since I'm not in the area rn, but I intend to drive through this area next weekend to recon what's there and what's not- I'll give an update then
BMACS001 (2021-10-07 20:16:04+00:00): Also you're right about that being a two-way; I'll fix that now
BMACS001 (2021-10-18 01:00:37+00:00): After going over the bridge this past weekend, I can confirm that there is a sidewalk on the eastbound side; however, it's inaccessible before the ramp currently under construction from Fish House Road, so if you were going to implement anything I say mark it as under construction
MapTheWalk (2021-10-05 14:15:56+00:00): Hi, this changeset deleted the tag "shop=hairdresser" from the barber. As a result, it is not rendered anymore in the map. Kindly add it back, since it seems like it was correctly tagged before.
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:18:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
Sandal man (2021-10-04 11:02:28+00:00): Hola, olvidaste etiquetar esto. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989196709#map=19/40.89786/-4.00496
Nordpfeil (2021-10-04 07:58:24+00:00): Hola Federico, podrías echar un vistazo a la etiqueta 
"Beneficiadora de Café = Marranera" que parece ser puesta sin intención.
WalkerB (2021-11-08 12:29:04+00:00): Hi Nordpfeil, I hope you're doing well.  Thank you so much for your work.  I wanted to bring to your attention that some of your roads have "unclassified" being misspelled, which means they don't render and cannot be used for routing.  Would you mind fixing them?  in case it helps, here is the Overpass turbo link: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1cOf

If you want to build the query yourself, the tag is: “highway=Unclasisified”

Respectfully yours,

Walker
Nordpfeil (2021-11-08 15:33:28+00:00): Hallo Walker, 
I used your Overpass and then opened the area using the filter funcion in JOSM to identify and complete my corrections. I hope I've got them all. 
In my first run, following the link mentioned in source, I sustituted "Highway" by "highway" but didn't note the misspelled Value. Regards Peter Nordpfeil
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:16:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
recrayon (2024-09-29 00:51:21+00:00): hi, please do not add names like "this looks like a dirt road" or "possible building", as this is inaccurate tagging and harms the quality of the map. please ONLY use these types of names if it is the official name of it. thanks
recrayon (2024-09-29 00:54:33+00:00): also please use ref=* instead of name=* for things like IDs.
zorglubu (2021-10-06 09:28:51+00:00): Bonjour, et bienvenue sur OpenStreetMap.
Vous avez ajouté des noms sur des bâtiments sans préciser de quoi il s'agit. Il est important de préciser s'il s'agit de gîte, de restaurant, ou autre chose. Vous pouvez rechercher sur le wiki les bonnes informations à mettre : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Page_principale

Merci encore d'avoir contribué à OSM, continuez !
BlackyP8 (2021-10-06 15:58:44+00:00): Hallo felf,

"navigierbar gemacht" muss ich leider widersprechen, das war es auch vorher schon. Nur weil viele Programme mit der 'area' nicht klar kommen ist das per se erstmal kein OSM-Datenproblem. Können Sie mir bitte sagen auf welche Wiki Seiten Sie sich beziehen?

LG
BlackyP8
BlackyP8 (2021-10-06 16:13:36+00:00): P.S. das Entfernen des area=yes tags habe ich korrigiert
felf (2021-10-06 18:50:33+00:00): Hallo BlackyP8,
auf 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:area:highway%3Dpedestrian gibt es den Abschnitt „Correct tagging“, an den ich mich gehalten habe. Außerdem habe ich mir angesehen, wie der Domplatz in Erfurt modelliert wurde.
BlackyP8 (2021-10-06 19:12:51+00:00): Hallo felf,

diese Schema ist nicht für Fußgängerzonen geeignet (siehe 2. Absatz in dem Link).
Das Tag area:highway=pedestrian ist auch mehr informativer Natur für Renderer um die Fläche richtig zu generieren, also z.B. für Mikromapping wenn man die Oberfläche eines straßenbegleitenden Gehweges mappt.
Dieses Tag kann man natürlich auch zusätzlich an Plätzen setzen, aber das Schema aus dem Artikel darf dann nicht verwendet werden.
Das Schema für Plätze wird in diesem Artikel beschrieben:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
Eine Ausnahme für einen 'extra' Weg über die area würde ich noch bei der Ludwig-Chronegk-Straße sehen, da diese die Area direkt überquert.
Enfernst du alle anderen neuen Wege über die Area bitte wieder, oder soll ich?

LG
BlackyP8
felf (2021-10-06 19:46:51+00:00): ist weg.
BlackyP8 (2021-10-06 20:02:34+00:00): Danke
SomeoneElse (2021-10-04 10:29:10+00:00): Hello,
Just for info, I've filled in a gap in the in part of the Fen Rivers Way near Ely.  Originally it was https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bJn , it was then changed to https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bJo (presumably because the path here runs along the road), and I've now changed it to https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bJp .
Hopefully this is OK...
Best Regards,
Andy
mas90 (2021-10-04 19:25:52+00:00): Thanks, Andy.  I didn't spot that there was a relation for the route.  I've just filled in another gap to the south.
SomeoneElse (2021-10-04 19:37:45+00:00): Excellent - thanks.
Incidentally, if you're wondering how I spotted it, this diary entry explains it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/397310 .
MapTheWalk (2021-10-05 13:44:02+00:00): Hi, I replaced "ele" with "level=2", which is the correct tag for this purpose.

Also, you may want to tag your business with "amenity=childcare" or "amenity=kindergarten" rather than Community Center.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dchildcare
Frans S (2021-10-04 11:49:29+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please pay attention on these points. 
Square each building you map.
Map all buildings. You overlooked some.


FYI Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112048188
julcnx (2021-10-04 03:13:15+00:00): Thanks for your contributions. In the future, please kindly split your changes into smaller geographical changesets. For more info: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/112048200