Hi! Your edit is not correct in location where I have knowledge "on the ground" (Yerevan, Armenia) and, does not make sense. Please, revert

BTW, thank you for restoring "area=yes" for cairns!

Can you (or how can I) bring back the line of "not cliff"?

I think, "natural=earth_bank" or "man_made=embankment" tags fit instead of a "cliff", reflecting there is no passage over the edge of the road and danger of falling.

I can draw it again, but I would like to know how to technically do a "resurrection" of the object.

1) Regarding "tertiary links" you are absolutely right. Corrected those to "roads" in this changset: osm.org/changeset/15582734

2) I agree with you about service->residential. So, I cast types of streets in the settlements around this way (osm.org/way/207894129 ) -- in this changset (osm.org/changeset/15582725). Let's see if there will be a backlash or not.
=> If there is no backlash, then can try to cast other examples you found to "residential" (I have no objections myself)

PS: "living street", by wiki is something with "A general feature of living streets is that the legislation grants pedestrians higher or equal right of way over other road users." Unfortunately, so far no one from the community ever seen a street with "legally protected" pedestrians. "Pedestrian street" sign is non-existent here. => Imo, one can safely cast all "living streets" to "service roads" without loss of information (but with a loss of misleading information)

*I vouch to revert this changeset

Discussion here: osm.org/changeset/155785497

May I respectfully disagree with everything=)

1) Creation of retaining wall is superficial - the basin boundary/wall is one real-world feature and, hence, should be one object. (osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element)
Additional information about basin wall that it is a wall and not a slope, IMO, is not sufficient to justify the duplication:
a) that is a responsibility of the person on the ground
b) there is a lot of space to navigate around, so that ability to cross the area is not of high importance

2) I was also surprised, that the basin is tagged as natural, not man-made, but that's what the documentation says! All kinds of water bodies, even constructed, are supposed to be "natural": osm.wiki/Template:Map_Features:basin

+ quote from wiki about "natural" tag: "The natural key is used to describe a wide variety of physical geography, geological and landcover features, including ones that have been modified or created by humans." (osm.wiki/Key:natural)

3) "brownfield" is a new tag for me. From what is in the wiki, it is a tag to describe a landuse, while the basins we are talking about are more like distinct objects/amenities, rather than landuse. Imo, they are objects located within "landuse=park" (albeit unmarked). It is not a lot for re-development, it is ... a disused amenity.

=> I vouch to revert this changeset

Yet, thank you very much for your thoughtful approach!

Oh, sorry! I have not looked at "source" of the changeset (not too experienced it that yet).

I meant the biggest basin.

I already did as you said: big basin is now disused:basin and small one is disused:pond.

Thank you for your prompt reply!

*Join our OSM Armenia group in Telegram if you wish=))

Hi! Thanks for your effors in mapping the area.

For this changeset, have you inspected the area from the ground or from aerial imagery?

We spotted a conceptual error that you changed the basin to retaining walls. However, it is still a basin, albeit disused.

If you changes were from the imagery, can you, please, scrutinize them? Is there some edit that I should check from the ground?

Hello ChromeLotus!

- osm.org/way/135437282 - plays a role of a link, but, yes, not physically separated as a link; corrected to tertiary
- osm.org/way/23635109 - my not intentional blunder. It is definitely a tertiary road.
- osm.org/ - also, not physically separated, but has a lot of "through" traffic, so corrected to tertiary road (+ simplified the roads around because they are definitely "recorded" from GPS with too many dots without meaningful turns)

Regarding "highway features were updated to service from living_street and residential".
*) There are two links, but they are the same changeset. Did you have another changeset to highlight?
1) There are definitely no "living_street"s in Armenia, so changing from this type to "residential" or "service" is an improvement
2) I, once, casted most of the streets in those neighbourhoods from "service" to "residential" but (if I remember it correctly) that change was rolled back to "service" by some logic (in the talks with local mappers).

E.g. osm.org/way/203936144/history - I mapped it as residential in V9, but in V8 and V10 it was typed as "service".

I use the principle that "residential road" should lead to some other, residential or service or driveways (and, thus, usually, not a dead-end, but branches into service roads).

So, I, personally, agree with your suggestion to cast "service->residential" but do not know where/why this difference is important to "fight" others.

@Vasak87 - why do you prefer these neighbourhool roads to be service type rather than residential type?

Привет! Բարև ջես։

Я сделал много правок, ты много этих правок отменил. Я опирался на предписания вики (и то, что я был на местности). Например, эта дорога не разделена посередине физическим барьером, поэтому её некорректно маппить как две линии (тем более как две линии по 4 полосы).
Или многие внутриквартальные дороги я отметил, как residential, а ты вернул service, хотя service - это чисто технические, а на этих улицаю люди живут, играют дети=)

Приходи в телеграм-чат OSM в Армении - https://t.me/osm_armenia.

Спасибо, изучу. Всё сам поправлю (к концу этих выходных). И спасибо за совет по плагину!

нет. нет. Можно было и без такой волны возмущения) Дайте, пожалуйста, ссылку на описание явления, и как его учитывать.