Bonjour,
Concernant votre fixme sur le chemin 790820936, non. Il y a bien un track qui plonge dans l'eau (ou la boue selon le niveau de l'Arz) et un path en surplomb, un peu à l'Est.
Cordialement.

Bonjour,
comme pour l'autre pont, il faut supprimer la portion de chemin recouverte par le pont.
Sinon pour ces tuyaux en béton (buses ?), il y a tag dédié, tunnel=culvert, que l'on applique sur le ruisseau, avec un layer=-1 et on laisse le chemin sans modification.

cf osm.wiki/FR:Tag:tunnel=culvert

Cordialement.

Il est aussi possible de préciser le matériau de construction principal du pont, ici par exemple avec material=wood.

Bonjour,
lorsque l'on ajoute un pont, il faut couper le chemin orignal de chaque côté du pont, et supprimer la partie redondante.
En effet ici il y a toujours un chemin qui traverse le ruisseau, et aussi un pont par dessus !
Sinon le tag highway=footway est plutôt utilisé pour les cheminement piétons en ville, pour un sentier on utilise plutôt highway=path.
Cordialement.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/90281111

Bonjour,
vous avez ajouté le tag “ford” a un chemin :
osm.org/way/369242774
Je ne vois pas de gué à cet endroit, et de toutes façons ce tag ne s'utilise, à ma connaissance, que sur un nœud, au croisement d'une route et d'un cours d'eau.
Cordialement.

Hello,
you mapped a pipeline in a clear cut.
Way #379513905.
However there are power lines (you can see the poles) in this cut.
What makes you think there's also a pipeline ?
Best regards.

Beware, you've added a building=yes tag on a region ! Specifically relation #1751198.
I found it by chance.
You should check your recent changesets carefully for other mistakes...
Regards.

Beware, you've added a building=yes tag on a region ! Specifically relation #1751198.
I found it by chance.
You should check your recent changesets carefully for other mistakes...
Regards.

Looks good now !
Sometimes you have to wait a bit before your changes are visible.
Thanks for correcting !
Keep up the good work.
Regards.

He might need some help.
See: osm.org/changeset/43474711
Regards.

Hello,
I came to your work through a maproulette challenge about self-intersecting ways (more info : http://area.jochentopf.com/fixing.html).
It seems your over-simplified the road to Gey ! So It broke a few things around.
Maybe a revert would be the simplest ?
Best regards.

Hello,
I don't understand why you would delete the tags of relation 1640871, but not delete the relation and its member.
I can understand that you don't want to work with old and complex landcover imports, and prefer to start from scratch, but if you clean others' work, please don't leave untagged ways and relation lying around...
Also, and that's why I came here, your new landuses had a few mistakes (self-intersecting) (see http://area.jochentopf.com/fixing.html if curious).
Best regards.

No problem !
Please ask if you need anything specific.
Good luck with your mapping !
(somme information on GPS tracks : osm.wiki/Recording_GPS_tracks )
Regards.

All right, you should write it in your comments, it's confusing.
You could try to get some GPX tracks uploaded.
Keep up the good work !
Regards.

Hi !
I don't undersand what source you're using.
It says Bing but it looks more like it was mapped before on Bing !
Please ask if I'm not clear.
Regards.

I've just tried to correct it wrt the lake bank.
Hope that will satisfy the renderer.
Regarding the complete removal of the wetland, I don't feel expert enough to have an advice.
Regards.

All right, I'll try also to clean up, at least the crossing parts.
But my question was, is there still wetland around this lake ?
Maybe we should just delete the relation wetland.
Regards

Thanks for the corrections.
I'm afraid I spotted another trouble.
If you look at the area via openstreetmap.org, at some zoom levels, you'll see that the lake is "flooded" by the wetland !
I think (not sure yet) that's it's because since this edit, the outer of the wetland relation crosses the inner.
Why did you (was that really by the way ?) push the wet land, mainly around the "Likangala" ?
Is it dry land now ?
Maybe this whole "wetland" is useless, by looking at the history of the relation, it seems that it is the extent of the lake, like ten years ago.
Have you any idea about this ?

Best regards.

Hello,
I'm starting on the following task :
http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/907#task/188
I've noticed that residential polygons in the vicinity, called "Mchenga" and "Kachulu".
But there were already some landuse=residential, created a year ago.
Also there is a "Mchenga" place node, 6 years old, but it falls in your Kachulu landuse...
Well nothing catastrophic, but you should try and clean up older data if your data is more precise.
Regards?

Did you try to "load all members" of the multipolygon ?
IMHO this way is all right.
Regards