One question around the disputed changes/reverts: why no keeping `type=island` instead of `type=locality` ?
I guess the dispute is about the names and political sovereignty, but I'm tempted to think that the type could be quite consensual ?

Va bene, faccio io o fai tu? :)

Hi Fayor,
If I get it right, in this changeset you added boundary=administrative+admin_level=4 to some small islands (eg. Isolotto de lla Pelosa), which seems wrong to me.
IMHO, boundary=administrative+admin_level=4 should only be tagged on the proper admin_level=4 relation (in this case Sardegna).
What do you think?
Grazie :)

Yes, that makes sense, but even the restaurant "Mario e Pinella", which is down the beach, uses "Cala Sapone" as locality in their address: http://www.marioepinella.it/
So I'm tempted to say that the locality is roughly "everything around the beach Cala Sapone", and thus I'm tempted to think the locality node should be down there. :)
What do you think? :)

Ciao dan! :)
Are you sure about the new "Cala Sapone" node?
From my knowledge, it's the name of the beach 1km down from here (and indeed a node exists there).
I understand this name is also used as a "locality", but I wonder why a new node 1 km away from the original beach?
Thanks :)

hi edvac, tagging boundary=administrative+admin_level=x on coastline ways seems weird to me. Seems to me those tags should only be set to the administrative relations.
For example here: way/18793204
What do you think? :)

@malcolmh, why are you still removing "harbour:category" tags to put your parasite tags inplace (seamark:harbour:category)?