You requested a review of this changeset. I already removed many duplicate buildings while I was reviewing another of your changesets (#90438627) so I won't repeat my comments here.

You requested a review of this changeset. Everything you added looks good.

At your request, I reviewed this addition. It looks fine as is but because we're mapping in Thailand the English description you added really should be tagged as description:en. Assuming you are a Thai, you might consider adding a description in Thai language.

Also, according to English custom, the name Doi Tao Lake would be spelled with capital letters as I have done here. It's not a big deal as most searches would still find it but to be fully correct, that is the best way to do it.

Ive reviewed most of this changeset and the data you added/edited looks good. It's of much higher quality than your previous mapping. You're making progress. I still see buildings included in natural=wood areas, same for orchards. Maybe you could spend a little more time to outline them more thoroughly?

Sorry to be so direct but I have really never seen such poor technique. The buildings were present for a year before you added yours. It is inexplicable how you could have done what you did. And then, even if the buildings were somehow invisible to you, your "buildings" sometimes included shapes from several closely spaced but clearly _individual_ buildings. That's why I asked what were you thinking.

Using Bing imagery is not the problem. All imagery must be adjusted by downloading GPS traces and then moving the imagery until highways line up with those traces. After doing that, you can add objects with some confidence that they are positioned properly.

Whether you use Bing, ESRI or Maxar imagery, it still needs to be aligned properly and the only way to do that is by using GPS traces.

Start by reading this:
osm.wiki/Using_Imagery

There are many other places to learn about this process but that should help.

I said พิชัย บุญทัน is your colleague because he uses the exact same hashtags as you. Even if you don't know him or her personally, I consider him your colleague.

You are a new mapper and ordinarily I am very polite to new folks but we have seen so many come along lately who do weird stuff and use bad techniques that my patience has worn thin.

Thank you for asking that your work be checked. I'm sorry I couldn't be more accommodating.

This is a real mess. There are buildings placed on top of existing buildings, there are multiple buildings drawn as if they were a single building. Terrible. Why did you draw your buildings right on top of the existing ones? I see that you have done this dozens of times in this same area. What were you thinking?

All of thse of buildings were contributed by mappers who are working to help eliminate malaria. Great. But this sort of mapping will not help your cause.

I'm going through and deleting your additions but it's a big job. The Bing imagery you used is badly out of alignment so even the buildings added by your colleague (พิชัย บุญทัน) are poorly positioned. Wow, what a mess!

Please try to understand what you did and why. And please do not add any more data until you fully understand my comments.

Also, it is good practice to tell OSM how you obtained the information. Something like "source=2020-09-07 survey" or "personal_knowledge" would work. I assume that much of the info you provided looks as though it came from the restaurant's FB page. You could say that to clarify the situation.

Does the name of this restaurant appear in all capital letters on its sign or menus? If so, your work is perfect. The name in OSM should look just the way it would if you were there in person.

Hello,

You have added many wilderness_huts in this area. I think you are using that tag incorrectly. A wilderness_hut is located in wild country, usually accessible only on foot, is free and has sleeping facilities and sometimes even a fireplace or stove. Please read the description in the Wiki.

osm.wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dwilderness_hut

The huts you mapped are in towns. Why did you choose to map them that way? Are these places actually home stay guesthouses?

Thanks for the feedback.

I suspected that was your reason but I don't know if it's a valid one. Ideally, rendering issues shouldn't influence our tagging choices and yet, in this case, the layer tag may be appropriate. It's an interesting situation.

I'm not going to change anything or make any recommendations. I was just curious.

Dave

Hello,
I noted that you enhanced the tagging for this usually dry lake in China but I'm wondering why you tagged it with layer=-1

Can you tell me more about that tagging choice?

Cheers,
Dave

Your mapping of this wetland is sloppy and inaccurate. You have included bare fields and what appear to be wooded areas in the wetland that you then further tag as wetland=swamp.Have you visited the wetland personally? Do you know for a fact that the trees in your "swamp" are actually in water some of the time?

Please pay closer attention to what you're doing. Your building traces are inaccurate, . positioned badly and overlap with natural or landuse areas. It will take years to correct the mistakes you are making.

I wish you would reach out to other mappers to learn more about how to do things before mapping everything in Thailand the way you are doing it.

AlaskaDave

Hi Nicole,

Today I came across these two glaciers that you added as tourism=attraction a couple of years ago. I cannot find any source for the names you used. If these are names known locally and are not official names, I think the tagging should reflect that in a loc_name=Bomber Glacier for example.

What do you think?

Thank you,

Dave

So, will you make the edits? Did you understand the difference between levels and layers?

I mentioned this before but you haven't corrected your errors in either Wat Pak Mueang or nearby Wat Sri Moonrueang. The objects inside the walls that you tagged as buildings are actually better tagged as man_made=tower with tower:type=stupa.

Even if you disagree with that, these structures do not have floors or levels like multistory buildings but even if they did, your use of the layer tag to describe them is wrong. The levels in a building are LEVELS not LAYERS. That said, those stupas do not have either levels or layers; they are merely large concrete towers. Please read the Wiki to understand the difference between these two concepts.

Please reply to this comment to inform me if you are going to make the changes yourself or have me do it.

Thank you,
Dave

Did you accidentally reverse the direction of flow of this canal? id:695049611

Please do not edit it again!

Are you also mCloud00?

There is an object you tagged as a building in this changeset that is actually a tower, a stupa. (the building level=0 has the OSM id:786188922). There were several errors in your tagging of this object. 1) It's not really a multilevel building as you tagged it but a man_made=tower having tower:type=stupa
2) You used layer tags (layer=1, layer=2, etc.) instead of level=1, level=2, etc.
3) The ground level of any building is level=0 not level=1.

I did not change the building tags but did change all layers to levels. I'm not sure why I bothered to do that because IMO the tagging is incorrect for the entire object.

You can see the changes I made to the temple complex and surrounding area here:
osm.org/changeset/87957420#map=18/18.68007/98.99041

I also changed several more ways you had tagged as service/alleys back to what they were before, single lane residential ways.

This highway is not a service alley. I would have tagged it that way if it was. Please do not retag any of my work.

I have tried to reason with you and even offered to help you understand what you're doing wrong and you have not responded. If you do not stop messing up my work, I will contact the DWG and have you blocked again.

Hi,

I came across an Alaska State Park today, the Jack Bay State Marine Park included in this changeset, and wondered if you obtained permission to use the State of Alaska's copyrighted material. I have wanted to use Alaska park data for a long time but was always stopped by the anticipated trouble of obtaining such permission.

If you did this properly, I congratulate you because I want to start using it for parks in other parts of the state.

Can you please advise me on this important question?

Cheers,
Dave

Yes, it does. It appears the project is stalled for lack of funds. I don't expect that to change any time soon, especially now that Covid has paralyzed the economies of both the state and the country.
Thanks,

Dave