It seems so, although names do not match

You are right. I usually do it that way, but I must admit sometimes its too hard to go objects one by one and I submit several in a single step, sorry.

Hola Arturo
He estado revisando la wiki sobre amenity=place_of_worship y parece centrarse más en edificios, pero no excluye casos como este. En todo caso, habría que añadir place_of_worship=tree

Creo que hay un error en el etiquetado del árbol que hay junto a las ruinas de Cabeza Gatos. Le has puesto como lugar de culto. Probablemente se te han mezclado las etiquetas de dos objetos. ¿Puedes revisarlo?

Could you check geometry of this steps? It is only 1 cm long, it must be something different

I have enlarged the bridge according to the size estimated from the photograph. 1 cm was the size shown by JOSM and it was reported as "invalid geometry" while processing it with Osmosis

Thanks a lot for the photograph!

I can't see the photographs of the note, links seem broken. Is it really only 1 cm long?

Hello jakka
In this change set you added a 1 cm long bridge, which is quite estrange. Could you check it?
Same for the paths leading to that bridge.

You are welcome!

Could you please check Regenkuppe peak (node/12230350370) altitude? 5552 m seems far too much...

I don't know. As you can see, I only changed addr:street tag to match adjacent street name, but I really know the place.

Como podrás imaginar, yo no tengo ningún interés en trabajar en balde y mucho menos en entrar en una guerra de ediciones inútil. Si te parece, lo dejamos así. Saludos

Hola
Pues hasta donde yo sé, creo que es más correcto usar multipolígonos que superponer los polígonos, pero puedo estar equivocado. No tengo tan claro que sea más fácil a lo hora de ediciones futuras. Por ejemplo, imagínate que quieres modificar el contorno del embalse porque has detectado un error. Si tienes un polígono para el matorral y otro para el embalse, tienes que modificar los dos: doble trabajo y riesgo de olvidarte de uno de ellos. En cambio así, basta con editar una línea y las dos superficies quedan actualizadas. Mira por ejemplo los límites de municipios, provincias, etc. Todos están hecho mediante multipolígonos.

I'm sorry, I based on previous tag which seems was wrong. I could only check on aerial imagery.

As stated on the wiki, place=city and place=town must be used for populated areas. These relations cover sea areas and other areas not populated, so those tags were not appropriate.

For a person it's obvious that both 1.5 and 1,5 means one a half, but note these values are also processed by computers and they usually only "understand" one of them a decimal separator. And what about values like 2,.5 that I have also found?

I don't understand your complain. What is the problem having this changeset in the local history? Please explain. I think the real problem is having a wrong value in the database.

OK, I'll do it, but this kind of edits is difficult to reduce geographical area if you want to be minimally efficient.

I have replaced old boundary with a new polygon, based en current OSM data and Bing aerial imagery. It still needs improvement, but I think it's more realistic than previous one and will suffice for address search.