Hello, this was a mistake, thanks for pointing it out. I have now resolved it.
osm.org/changeset/165451814

Thanks for your comment and apologies for the late reply. I have now corrected this.
osm.org/changeset/165451718

I see that the other two ways are tagged as grass. Was this the original intention?

Hi leheng, this changeset created an untagged way. Can you check if this is an unintended mistake?
osm.org/way/1152836457

Hi DrunkParisian, greetings! Thanks for mapping the different cemeteries within Bukit Brown.
I noticed that you have used several lines as part of the multipolygon relations, instead of simply creating closed areas for the different areas. Is there a reason for this? Would you be okay if I modify the relations to convert these into areas?
Cheers

I am also concerned about the adequacy (and usefulness) of tagging dropoff points for shared bicycles. I myself have mapped sporadically in the past, though not in a consistent fashion.

When reading through the wiki for 'bicycle_rental', the case of Singapore borders the case of virtual drop-offs, or 'bicycle_parking=floor'.

osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbicycle_rental#When_to_use_a_different_tagging_scheme

Keen to read your thoughts!

Hi ADsdjk23
Thanks for your reply and for your contribution. Looking at the wiki explanation for this specific item, it seems like public access ('yes') is applicable in these cases, at least in public housing, parks and roadside racks.

Sharing for your reference:
osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbicycle_parking#Tags

Hi ADsdjk23. May I inquire why you consider that bicycle parking racks at HDB void decks should be tagged as 'access=permissive'? Anyone can use these for their personal use.
Open to hear your point of view!

Hi nicholas77, the features added in this changeset do not reflect the reality on the ground. It will be reverted along with other erroneous changesets in the area.

Hi nicholas77, the features added in this changeset do not reflect the reality on the ground. It will be reverted along with other erroneous changesets in the area.

Hi nicholas77, the features added in this changeset do not reflect the reality in the ground. It will be reverted along with other erroneous changesets in the area.

Hi nicholas77, the features added in this changeset do not reflect the reality in the ground. It will be reverted along with other erroneous changesets in the area.

Hi nicholas77, the features added in this changeset do not reflect the reality in the ground. It will be reverted along with other similar changesets in the area.

Hi nicholas77, the features added in this changeset do not reflect the reality in the ground. It will be reverted along with other similar changesets in the area.

Looks like you managed to fix it. Thanks for taking prompt action. Looking forward to see this project take off.

Hello Bella, I have identified a few issues with this changeset:
1. All the ways added have a certain offset, resulting in a misalignment with respect to the existing mapped roads.
2. The ways have been added in places where existing ways were already mapped, resulting in redundancy.
3. The ways are not linked to any other ways on the map. This will create problems for routing engines including CityMapper's.
4. Both changesets #125081673 and #125080903 overlap, resulting in duplicate imported ways.

Suggest reverting this and any changesets with similar issues.
Instead, please modify the geometry of the existing ways in accordance to LTA dataset, and add the applicable tags, making sure that alignment connectivity are correct.

Lastly, kindly indicate your affiliated organization and project for others' reference.

Cheers!

Welcome to OSM and thanks for your contribution.

Hi. You are right, the correct tag is diameter_crown. I have changed it. Thanks!

Hi AndrewWizit, this shop is already mapped as a pastry shop a few meters away. I have deleted the repeated node for this reason.

Hi skyper,
Thanks for addressing this issue. Removing those tags is indeed the best option until someone with local knowledge can complete them.
Regards