piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
user_5359 (2022-02-05 06:08:59+00:00): Maybe a very personal opinion, but besides licence issues (are the data published with an OSM compatible licence) the import list is also responsible for the correct naming of the keys used. So this mailing list is definitely still relevant for you.
As I understand it, these are https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Daccess_point or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point (older designation). You may recognise your signs in the images.
As a suggestion for OSM-compliant labelling, I suggest the following keys:
emergency = access_point (alternatively highway = emergency_access_point )
ref = <USNG_10m_Trunked value>
source = Bayfield County <charge number> 

<value USNG_1m> is the coordinate of the node (no separate naming required).
<value SignType> Have a look at the key hazard (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hazard), maybe this can be used.  Unfortunately, the existing data do not provide a differentiation according to the type of hazard). 

Oh yes, this question is also normally asked in the import list:Is there a risk that objects of the same type are already entered? This is definitely not the case.
CharlieMcLovin (2022-02-07 14:53:47+00:00): Hello! 

Thank you for all your advice and feedback and helping to make this possible. 

In response to u/iandees: 
* I think that is a great idea! It is for tourists and the general public to use when contacting first responders. The signs are blue rectangular signs attached to a post. They look like these: https://usngcenter.org/portfolio-item/print-marker-online/ 

In response to u/user_5359:
* Thank you for the feedback, I am new at this so this is definitely helpful information as I navigate this process. I think the tag: emergency access would fit really well with our data. 
* I think those are perfect tags for the data. I will add those to each sign and all future signs I will upload.
* I will check with our on-the-ground volunteers about the type of hazard at the danger sign locations
*Risk of Duplicate Data: No, there is no duplicate data for these USNG signs. However, some locations may already have an address sign (traditional address/fire number) installed (and thus possibly mapped), and then we are also adding a USNG coordinate sign to that same sign post.

Thank you again for all your insight and help in this project. In has helped me immensely and I will work on updating the tags and reference information ASAP. Please do not hesitate to contact me.
user_5359 (2022-02-17 10:18:06+00:00): Hello @CharlieMcLovin,
Again, the question of whether you need support with the implementation of the data attributes. You are also welcome to ask further questions about the use of OSM?
user_5359 (2022-03-06 11:54:49+00:00): I would be pleased to receive an answer to this question. Otherwise, I would change the data according to my suggestion (alternatively, deletion would also be possible).
CharlieMcLovin (2022-03-06 16:01:40+00:00): Hello,

Thank you for the follow-up. Another project for work was due and I have not been able to update these points yet. This Monday and Tuesday we have time scheduled to update the keys and add additional signs. Thank you again for the help and guidance.
CharlieMcLovin (2022-03-06 16:24:17+00:00): Thank you again for your patience with this and helping me understand imports better. What I will also check is if I can delete all the USNG data and redo it at the schedule time this week. If I have questions as I update the data and will make sure to reach out!
CharlieMcLovin (2022-03-06 18:17:17+00:00): Updated! https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118169707
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-02-04 05:21:21+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 115525296, 115533351, 115535954, 115565234, 115628064, 115635250, 115636440, 115637117, 115692473, 115694571, 115695558, 115734985, 115735673, 115736765, 115737885, 115738302, 115776102, 115777314, 115817241, 115853463, 115901083, 115928642, 115928769, 115970432, 115971697, 116047069, 116047703, 116050485, 116052019, 116054124, 116054432, 116055258, 116055424, 116055496, 116063114, 116133267, 116182303, 116202365, 116202672, 116203080, 116203232, 116207232, 116207715, 116230401, 116232961, 116233382, 116235073, 116235403, 116236595, 116271400, 116271460, 116272916, 116315686, 116315776, 116324803, 116327701, 116327710, 116343941, 116413443, 116414464, 116415089, 116417650, 116419746, 116421018, 116423706, 116426034, 116453954, 116489316, 116540857, 116542753, 116543747, 116546542, 116548096, 116549963, 116553894, 116571553, 116606219, 116608653, 116617540, 116619941, 116621562, 116660391, 116661709, 116663611, 116664266, 116665699, 116666832, 116668020, 116669671, 116672204, 116677003, 116764276, 116765249, 116767303, 116767783, 116768044, 116769454, 116769789, 116770612, 116771144, 116772037, 116772246, 116774303, 116775385, 116776157, 116777370, 116779540, 116780772, 116781577, 116794484, 116795327, 116801323, 116801467, 116803112, 116803132, 116805615, 116806627, 116808557, 116808795, 116811392, 116812360, 116845587, 116848539, 116849379, 116855230, 116860016, 116861486, 116861775, 116864058, 116907810, 116909943, 116910628, 116911687, 116913723, 116917799, 116918328, 116919093, 116922008, 116940708, 116941106, 116941222, 116941552, 116941744, 116942158, 116943097, 116943372, 116944123.
user_4142 (2022-02-08 10:12:52+00:00): Moi!

Ootko tarkoituksella poistanut tiestä highway-tagit? Esim. way 437351159
tikola (2022-02-10 07:18:08+00:00): Olen, eli esim. tuo 437351159 ei todellakaan ole highway - eikä edes ajotie vaan lähinnä ulkoilutie, jonne ei edes oikein ole autolla pääsyä.

Eli autolla liikkuminen on perusteltua Leinelän suunnasta muuntamolle saakka ja jossain tilanteessa ehkä joku puistonhoitotyö, mutta pohjoisen suunnnasta kaikki autoyhteydet on aika järjestelmällisesti poistettu eikä autolla ole noille urille mitään asiaa.

Jonkilainen pururadan/pyörätien välimaastossa oleva ura tuo on. Pyörätienä se saa reitittää noiden kautta, mutta autotieksi nimeäminen on minusta väärin. Korkeintaan huoltotie
tikola (2022-02-10 07:19:42+00:00): Mutta voin toki tarkistella, jos tein jotain väärin. Muutoksen taustalla oli latukarttojen reitittävyys kuntoon, eli ennen kaikkea päivitin latutietoa ja siinä sitten samalla ehkä jotain valaistuksia ja muuta vastaavaa


Tuo kyseinen paikka vähän on itseäni askarruttanut jo pidempään. Onko se huoltotie, metsäautotie vai pyörätie - en oikein osaa sanoa, kun ei se ole täysin mitään noista
tikola (2022-02-10 08:10:31+00:00): Olet muuten oikeassa highway=footway tai highway=service ovat tuossa oikein, eli noilla minun muutoksilla se näyttäytyy pelkkänä latuna ja se ei ole koko totuus

Minäpä palautan tuon 437351159 highway tagin ja katsotaan sitten tuliko siitä oikea?
tikola (2022-02-10 08:15:08+00:00): Nyt korjailin  - en palauttanut kaikkea, kun kyse oli muistakin muutoksista vaan muokkasin tekmiäni virheitä:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117233279#map=15/60.3414/25.0458
user_4142 (2022-02-10 08:21:11+00:00): Hyvä! 👍

Uskoisin, että näissä aiemmin ollut highway=cycleway on oikeampi tagi, mutta en oli tuolla hetkeen kulkenut, niin en varma ole.
tikola (2022-02-10 08:28:22+00:00): Sehän se cycleway aiemmin oli, kun minä muuttelin ne trailmap käyttöä varten silloin aikanaan. Ei se oikein pyörätiekään ole, kun miettii millaisia pyörätiet ovat ja jonkin verran metsänhoitoon liittyvää autoliikennettä alueella on, joten ehkä tuo huoltotie on oikein. Tai sitten niin, että huoltotietä muuntamolle saakka ja loppu pyörätietä.

Pitää vähän pohtia. Enhan muutellut tuota missään muualla, eli muut tiet säilyivät?
tikola (2022-02-10 08:34:04+00:00): No joo - cylcleway lienee oikein, eli Paloheinän alueen ulkoilutiet on varmaan se paras referenssi, joka näyttää aika paljon samalta kuin nämä urat. lähinnä se, että huoltotie status pitää siihen muuntamolle saakka säilytellä
user_4142 (2022-02-10 08:42:25+00:00): Varmaan juurikin noin.

En ainakaan muualla huomannut, että olisi hävinnyt. En tosin kovin tarkkaan ole katsonut.
ottwiz (2022-02-03 18:23:40+00:00): :D that was fast after you saw me mapping the landcover + landuse over there. I hope you check the buildings' shapes, because the RapiD's building recognizer isn't always accurate.
Omnific (2022-02-03 19:42:15+00:00): Hah, it looks barren with all the landcover data but no buildings, so I had to help out. The most recent revision of the Microsoft's footprint data is vastly improved in West Virginia. The shapes are much more accurate, just need to be rotated a couple degrees occasionally.
ottwiz (2022-02-03 19:44:03+00:00): Oh, I see. Thanks for it, I appreciate any help!
Omnific (2022-02-03 22:16:26+00:00): Thank you! You're doing awesome work!
ottwiz (2022-02-03 22:38:32+00:00): Thanks!
pitscheplatsch (2022-02-04 10:55:27+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

I guess something went wrong with your import script? You removed your failed imported duplicate highways (259)? Weird.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
SekeRob (2022-02-03 17:49:43+00:00): Can't get 2.20.4 to load, still 2.20.3 with that super annoying red line bug.
martien-176 (2022-03-05 19:11:51+00:00): You have been blocked by OSM for vandalism some time ago. The block has been lifted now, but i notice here that you started again. Please stop or you risk another block. Thanks.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116974614
mueschel (2022-02-21 17:44:47+00:00): Hi,
could you check this building? It got a strange tag.
bxl-forever (2022-02-21 23:07:43+00:00): My mistake, sorry.  Thanks for spotting it.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2022-02-06 11:23:36+00:00): 您好，编辑者
您在本变更集中对“汉川市城北水陆派出所”做出了修改
但是这个物件的标签是building=yes，因此它确实是一个建筑的轮廓而非一个用地面积的轮廓，您应该另外画一个“商务区”来表示整个派出所的用地
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116975238
pitscheplatsch (2022-02-04 10:55:29+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

I guess something went wrong with your import script? You removed your failed imported duplicate highways (259)? Weird.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
AndersAndersson (2022-02-04 23:23:42+00:00): Maxbredd 1,5 m låter smalt för bilar.
Men jag har väldigt lite lokalkännedom då jag inte reflekterat över detta.
Aerond (2022-02-05 06:43:51+00:00): hmm, det har du rätt i... Det var det jag skrev ner dock... kanske värt att undersöka igen.
Aerond (2022-05-01 08:23:27+00:00): Jag kan nu bekräfta att det finns en skylt som ser ut att säga max 1.5 m bredd på bilar, tog tom foto man kan se här: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3037841
AndersAndersson (2022-05-04 18:35:51+00:00): Skylten säger max axeltryck 1,5 ton. Vet inte om axeltryck mappas i OSM, enda jag sett är maxvikt.
Aerond (2022-05-06 03:59:57+00:00): jag missade det helt... fixat: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120611362

tack för infot..
Konkon153 (2022-02-03 18:23:59+00:00): [ und damit alle 154 aktuell vorhandenen Adressen in der Gemeinde Kobrow vollständig angepasst ]
l3BAM (2024-04-21 08:24:57+00:00): Bonjour. Vous avez créé des bancs de sable dans la Loire à partir de BDOrthoIGN qui ne donne une image que de l'été. Or, ces bancs de sable ne sont pas visibles 6 mois dans l'année. Vous avez restreint la Loire très excessivement ! Osm Inspector a tort. Merci de rectifier.
eggie (2022-02-03 18:53:26+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback   Keurig op de adresnode, maar......Alleen een naam doet niets in OSM.. 
Ook de aard van de instelling zul je moeten toevoegen... tourism=guest_house guest_house=bed_and_breakfast

Ik heb dat nu even toegevoegd.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
fabiotofy (2022-02-04 06:57:40+00:00): Ciao, attento però che così lo sterrato attraversa un edificio. Da correggere qualcosa: o l'edificio o lo strada.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116976638
gscholz (2022-02-05 06:02:51+00:00): Hi kseltar,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding duplicate nodes:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-57.48589&lat=-25.23562&zoom=17

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=116976687

Can you please fix this?

There are also a lot of errors where the single nodes of polygons have the same tags as the polygon itself. Can you care about this as well?
Kind Regards
Guido
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-02-03 18:54:51+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 116621792, 116621827, 116622032, 116622227, 116622330, 116622553, 116912736.
marczoutendijk (2022-02-03 19:25:25+00:00): There were too many changes to do a proper revert. Ivan Branco finally fixed that.
marczoutendijk (2022-02-03 19:11:23+00:00): Hi Ivan,
There were to much changes in that changeset to do a good revert.  
I see that you have reverted it to its proper tag.  
User is blocked.
ivanbranco (2022-02-04 16:53:19+00:00): Thank you :)
user_5359 (2022-02-14 07:10:52+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/971712274. What ist the meaning of the key creation?
BCNorwich (2022-08-18 06:30:19+00:00): Hi, It looks like Way: 1027478085 is not needed, perhaps you inadvertently added a duplicate line? Can it be removed?

Regards Bernard.
sykul (2022-08-18 08:19:27+00:00): It does look like a duplicate. I think it can be removed.
BCNorwich (2022-08-18 08:32:04+00:00): Thanks for replying, it's now removed.

Regards Bernard.
Konkon153 (2022-02-03 19:30:48+00:00): [ und damit alle aktuell vorhandenen Adressen (219) in der Gemeinde kontrolliert und vollständig angepasst ]
Konkon153 (2022-02-03 19:31:19+00:00): * Gemeinde Hohen Pritz ...
eggie (2022-11-12 19:56:34+00:00): Hoi RR

Een bijdrage van lang geleden. 
Het gebouw heb ik hersteld.met building=yes.  De dubbele tagging substation verwijderd. 
Groet eggie
RicoElectrico (2022-05-29 15:04:08+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9472462424 - to duplikat? Te same współrzędne co https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9467016608
eggie (2022-02-03 21:03:07+00:00): Top!
ottwiz (2022-02-03 19:41:47+00:00): I also used Mapbox imagery, i forgot to add that, but mostly I used Bing.
I forgot to add #ottwiz-mapping-wv hashtag. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ottwiz/ottwiz-mapping-wv
zstadler (2022-02-15 10:30:12+00:00): Hello Jeff,

Could you please clarify the purpose of the "Viewpoints on Disputed Administrative Boundaries" relation 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13658967

As far as I know, none of its members is disputed.
Jeff Underwood (2022-02-15 17:37:10+00:00): Hi zsadler, 

This is an uncommon sort of dispute, where a country does not recognize another's provinces or believes them to be of a different classification. In this case, it is marking that Palestine does not view Israel's province boundaries as admin_level=4. The purpose of the relation is allow for country specific views of boundaries while still using just OSM data.

This and all the other disputes I mapped recently are being pulled from the Natural Earth dataset if you are curious on the source.

I think the name I gave was overly vague and dispute can be a charged word. Maybe something like "External Viewpoints on Administrative Boundary Levels" would be a little more clear and neutral sounding. What do you think?

Happy to chat more if you have additional concerns or questions as well.

-Jeff
zstadler (2022-02-15 18:16:56+00:00): Hello Jeff,

For the sake of verifiability, what is the source of the claim that "Palestine does not view Israel's province boundaries as admin_level=4"?

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, these provinces have been around since before 1948, during the British mandate over Palestine. Potentially, they date back to the Ottoman Empire.
Jeff Underwood (2022-02-16 21:09:30+00:00): Hello zstadler,

It sounds like the source on Natural Earth is generally from Palestine not recognizing Israel therefore not recognizing its province boundaries. 

Regardless, to avoid further controversy on this particular relation, I've deleted it as you are not the first to be skeptical of it.

Appreciate you reaching out!
Jeff
user_5359 (2022-02-04 10:09:36+00:00): Hello! Please have a look https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9472446806. What is the meaning of the tag autoe = GeoMapESPE ?
Please don't mark the data with mapper information. A hashtag can be insert on the changeset comment
ezekielf (2022-02-14 02:41:14+00:00): Hi bkuker,
The waterway relation looks good to me.  The only thing I'd suggest is to add the culverts to the relation too since they are also part of the waterway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116978760
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-02-04 05:21:22+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 115525296, 115533351, 115535954, 115565234, 115628064, 115635250, 115636440, 115637117, 115692473, 115694571, 115695558, 115734985, 115735673, 115736765, 115737885, 115738302, 115776102, 115777314, 115817241, 115853463, 115901083, 115928642, 115928769, 115970432, 115971697, 116047069, 116047703, 116050485, 116052019, 116054124, 116054432, 116055258, 116055424, 116055496, 116063114, 116133267, 116182303, 116202365, 116202672, 116203080, 116203232, 116207232, 116207715, 116230401, 116232961, 116233382, 116235073, 116235403, 116236595, 116271400, 116271460, 116272916, 116315686, 116315776, 116324803, 116327701, 116327710, 116343941, 116413443, 116414464, 116415089, 116417650, 116419746, 116421018, 116423706, 116426034, 116453954, 116489316, 116540857, 116542753, 116543747, 116546542, 116548096, 116549963, 116553894, 116571553, 116606219, 116608653, 116617540, 116619941, 116621562, 116660391, 116661709, 116663611, 116664266, 116665699, 116666832, 116668020, 116669671, 116672204, 116677003, 116764276, 116765249, 116767303, 116767783, 116768044, 116769454, 116769789, 116770612, 116771144, 116772037, 116772246, 116774303, 116775385, 116776157, 116777370, 116779540, 116780772, 116781577, 116794484, 116795327, 116801323, 116801467, 116803112, 116803132, 116805615, 116806627, 116808557, 116808795, 116811392, 116812360, 116845587, 116848539, 116849379, 116855230, 116860016, 116861486, 116861775, 116864058, 116907810, 116909943, 116910628, 116911687, 116913723, 116917799, 116918328, 116919093, 116922008, 116940708, 116941106, 116941222, 116941552, 116941744, 116942158, 116943097, 116943372, 116944123.
pyram (2022-03-02 18:15:05+00:00): Hallo anonym354243,

Du hast den "Louzil" (Edeka) umbenannt. Warum?

Gruß
pyram
user_5359 (2022-02-04 10:06:34+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9458776872/history. Did you mean alt_name instead of alt_n?
Fer25 (2022-02-04 16:36:47+00:00): Yes, I wanted to write alt_name. I saw the option and pressed Enter but I didn't verify that all is ok. Sorry
Eifelkobold! (2022-02-06 17:19:38+00:00): Guten Abend breeckx,

mir ist aufgefallen, dass du in diesem Änderungssatz die Straßenbrücke bei Burg Veynau neu eingezeichnet und die Brückenfläche gelöscht hast. Wenn jedoch der Weg über die Brücke existiert, existiert auch die Brücke und muss / sollte dann nicht gelöscht werden.

Weiter südlich ist mir zudem der Feldweg aufgefallen, den du geteilt und die Brücke gekürzt hast, während die Brückenfläche unverändert blieb. So stimmen der Weg über die Brücke und die Brückenfläche nicht mehr überein.

Was ist der Grund für deine Änderungen?

viele Grüße

Eifelkobold
breeckx (2022-02-06 18:34:08+00:00): Hi Eifelkobold,
ich sehe, dass du die Änderungen wieder rückgängig gemacht hast. Ich wusste nicht, dass die Brücke zerstört wurde. Danke für die deine Aufmerksamkeit. 
Liebe Grüße
Breeckx
Allison P (2022-03-19 22:25:36+00:00): Please make sure to expand all street name suffixes. It seems someone has already fixed this here, but some of your other changesets still have this issue.
eggie (2022-02-03 21:06:41+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Tip probeer bij te taggen op de bestaande adresnodes. Dus de info gewoon samenvoegen. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-02-03 21:09:25+00:00): De info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande BAG adresnode
Gr eggie
Frans S (2022-02-04 11:22:16+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here
Good work. 
Just a few remarks.
Solve the issues which IDeditor shows before uploading your work.

Buildings, huts here, must show a shadow next to it , this proofs it is above groundlevel thus probably a building.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-02-03 22:53:41+00:00): Hi Sukhadad,

You changed this building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/650952014 into a park, but there's already a larger park here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/499397018

What were you trying to do?
Glassman (2022-02-04 17:06:29+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116979999
Glassman (2022-02-04 17:07:22+00:00): As WoodWoseWulf said - you added two parks but both were already mapped. Can you review your edit and if you agree - remove your added parks?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116979999
Osmwithspace (2022-02-18 11:57:30+00:00): Hallo, du hast bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/893124488 area=yes hinzugefügt. Das macht aber aus meiner Sicht eher kein Sinn?
Osmwithspace (2022-02-18 11:58:08+00:00): Nerver mind, das war ich selber =)
mini-me (2022-02-03 22:54:00+00:00): «Станция метро „Московская“» – это название остановок наземного транспорта. Сама станция просто «Московская».
Glassman (2022-02-04 17:11:02+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good. 

And yes the coastline should be the high tide mark.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116980521
mueschel (2022-02-21 17:42:11+00:00): Hallo,
diese Tags werden sonst nirgends verwendet:
gauge
reference level
reference point
reference marker

Bitte schau mal bei den seamark* Tags, ob es da nicht etwas passendes gibt.
nehler (2022-02-21 18:08:49+00:00): Hallo Mueschel,

ich habe unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Seamarks/Seamark_Objects gesucht und nichts passendes gefunden.
Hier die Erklärung wie ich die Tags genutzt habe.
Gauge - zu deutsch Wasserpegel
reference level - der Normalpegel liegt bei 2,8m 
reference point - dieser höhe des Pegels liegt 28m über NN
Dieser Pegel dient in Berlin als Referenz für die 
Durchfahrtshöhen vieler Brücken.
Quelle: https://www.pegelonline.wsv.de/gast/stammdaten?pegelnr=582730

Wenn ich etwas falsch benutzt habe - bitte korrigieren. Ich beabsichtige weitere Pegel einzutragen - es soll aber richtig sein.

Grüße
Gode Nehler
nehler (2022-02-21 18:13:27+00:00): Nachtrag:

ich habe gerade waterway_gauge gefunden. Soll dieses statt gauge genutzt werden? ich ändere es gerne.
mueschel (2022-02-21 18:26:21+00:00): 'gauge' ist in OSM die Spurbreite der Eisenbahn. Dieses Tag ist aber auch gar nicht nötig, das ist ja schon mit seamark:type und seamark:name gesagt.
"seamark:waterway_gauge:category" gibt es schon, um die Art des Pegels zu erfassen.

"reference  xxx" - Keys sollen keine Leerzeichen enthalten - hier würde ich dann auch enstprechend subkeys verwenden, z.B. 
seamark:waterway_gauge:category:reference_level
nehler (2022-02-21 20:27:12+00:00): Hallo,

ich habe es nachgebessert, ich hoffe es ist richtig.
Gisolic (2022-02-06 12:29:47+00:00): Hello Akam Aziz,
I notice you added many "oneway" tag in streets thats make it dead end and changed the classification for ways, Could you provide us with the source you added in ways?
regards
Gisolic
Trevor_1 (2022-06-01 22:42:06+00:00): Hi, in the future, please don't change the Road Number (ref tag) from TX to SH.
narwhalofages (2022-02-03 21:21:52+00:00): Typo in description, updated businesses on SE 30th Street, not SE 20th