Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me, looks great!

Great - thanks!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, except that the changeset comment field is for you to describe what changes you made, not the source. (There is also a source field for you to put "local knowledge".) Providing a descriptive changeset comment lets others review your work more easily. Thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Yeah, if you were there in person and there's no public access then you can definitely put access=no. For situations like this I'll also add a check_date=* tag to show a future mapper how stale the observation is. (Since it might be reopened in the future)

Since you requested a review on this changeset, I looked it over - Looks good to me, as long as you were there in person to verify the trail is really completely gone. It did have the informal=yes tag on it, meaning it may not have been signed or marked.

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. That looks good to me, no complaints! Welcome to OSM.

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me, no complaints! Welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me, looks good!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks like this is put in a residential area, are you sure it's the correct location?

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me - looks great!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes.

- Opening hours tag follows a specific syntax. It can be a little tricky but using this format makes it machine-readable, meaning apps and whatnot can parse it reliably. (Looks like another mapper already fixed this formatting for you.)

Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136837468

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. (I know it's late - there seems to be a lack of experienced mappers watching out for new contributors requesting review.)

Anyway, no complaints from me, everything looks great! Welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. No complaints from me, looks good. Thanks again and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes.
Your edits all look good to me! One very minor note, while generic building=yes is totally valid, I usually find it easiest to categorize buildings more specifically at time of creation. (Only when it's obvious what they are.) So for example these could be tagged as houses.
Anyway, thanks again, and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks good to me, no complaints. Welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes.

- It's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM tags wherever possible. ("N" -> "North")
- The Description tag should be a concise description of the feature rather than a free-form ad space.

I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!

Any info on this?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143628306

Any comments on this?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143252053

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Since you included lots of unrelated changes, it's a little hard for me to be completely sure, but I don't see any issues. Thanks again and happy mapping!

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I went over the changes you made. I think in this case you could use either playground=swing or playground:swing=yes. While playground=swing seems to be much more commonly used, I'd consider that to be more appropriate for an area that only has swings, rather than a larger playground that contains swings as one of many features.

playground:swing=yes has the benefit of allowing more feature tags to be added without resorting to multiple values on one key (like playground=swing;slide) which is usually good only as a last resort.

Hope that makes sense. Thanks again and happy mapping!