The logic behind this changeset is similar to the previous one, which you also commented on. However, the situation here is slightly different, as earlier data suggests that this area, based on imagery, has been rebuilt, and instead of several buildings, there is the large one now.
I don’t have information if the previous address is still relevant for this new building.
I am really sorry if I made something wrong. So, please, let me know if I need to add this address again.
Sincerely, squeaker_andrus.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177810830

Hello, Udar! Thanks a lot for your comment and paying attention to the addresses.
In this changeset, the removal of some addresses was based on the absence of objects in satellite imagery to which these addresses could be linked. Based on earlier edits, there were houses at this location that were marked as demolished in 2020.
I apologise if I removed the actual data. I will return the deleted points with addresses if needed.
Sincerely, squeaker_andrus.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177806941

Hello, Udar! Thanks a lot for your comment and paying attention to the addresses.
In this changeset, the removal of some addresses was based on the absence of objects in satellite imagery to which these addresses could be linked. Based on earlier edits, there were houses at this location that were marked as demolished in 2020.
I apologise if I removed the actual data. I will return the deleted points with addresses if needed.
Sincerely, squeaker_andrus.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177806941

Hello, Udar! Thanks a lot for your comment and paying attention to the addresses.
In this changeset, the removal of some addresses was based on the absence of objects in satellite imagery to which these addresses could be linked. Based on earlier edits, there were houses at this location that were marked as demolished in 2020.
I apologise if I removed the actual data. I will return the deleted points with addresses if needed.
Sincerely, squeaker_andrus.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177806941

Yes! Good. Now it looks great. Thank you for taking the time to do this.

Hello, aceman444!

I changed the tags based on the data from the OSM Wiki at the link: sport=motor It is said that the tag "highway=raceway" is more suitable for linear objects. Based on this article and the fact that the territory includes the racing area and building, I came to the conclusion that “leisure=sports_centre” is the more correct tag.
But I didn't notice that the area is used for the show. I’m sorry for my carelessness and thank you for paying my attention to this.

I studied another article about raceways again (highway=raceway ), where it says that small raceways can be mapped as a polygon with adding the tag “area=yes”, but the building should be excluded from this area. Another option for this area is using the tag “area:highway=raceway”. Both options require changing the geometry.
One more option that I see is using “tourism=attraction” for the area, it doesn’t require geometry changes, but it will be a cause of the duplication (there is such a point nearby).

So, in my opinion the best way is using the tag “area:highway=raceway” and fixing geometry.
What is the best way in your opinion?

Based on OSM Wiki and visual observation via Bing Streetside it can be seen that the tag "building=yes" in addition to other tags does not suit these objects
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168686508

Greetings, Xavizard Knight!
I think you are indeed right. In this changeset, I decided to change the polygonal pedestrian zones into linear objects and connect them to the nearest paths. I made the change, taking as a basis not only aerial photographs, but also previously made changes by other users. This is probably what confused me.
As for tags, this is really my mistake. I deleted the way that goes through the backyard and fixed the tags of the way which goes through the garden .
Thank you for bringing the mistake to my attention. I’ll be more attentive while editing. Also feel free to fix my edits if needed.
Sincerely, squeaker_andrus.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167262598