I've reverted it here <osm.org/changeset/139296343>

Hi. why did you make this change? if the `name` includes a “💜” then we should keep it. We shouldn't (mis)tag for the renderer (or “other systems”) . What other systems

yeah I saw that… I wasn't sure if that was better or the `no:` prefix. Do you think I should change it?

Hi. You've added a lot of landuses here. But if I check the aerial, I can't see why this <osm.org/relation/15812548> is mapped as heath, where as this <osm.org/relation/15812779> is just sand. They look the same to me... Why did you mapt them different? Am I missing something?

Yes. I wanted to tag that this river does not have a Wikipedia entry. I am improving the tagging of rivers in Ireland, incl. adding the `wikipedia` tag. I added `no:wikipedia` to show that one should not look for a wikipedia tag.

I think this `no:wikipedia` tag should only be used when one might expect a wikipedia article, not for any or all OSM objects.

Hi, you added ` diet:vegan=True` here, but the proper tag is `=yes` or `=only`.

osm.wiki/Key%3Adiet%3Avegan

You've added a big, rough, duplicate river here: osm.org/way/1104478391#map=8/-1.329/-62.807

I've delted it here osm.org/changeset/137923262

Yes, `access=no` is correct for paths you're not legally allowed go on.

Since this entire route is promenantly mentioned on the park website, I couldn't understand how it was closed.
However the route description ( https://www.parconazionaledelvesuvio.it/en/visit-the-park/the-paths/the-great-cono/ ) confirms what you say:

> The arrival at Capannuccia at 1,170 metres of altitude is the close destination of the trail.
> At the moment, it is not possible to cover the entire ring (intermediate destination and itinerary destination) as some interventions are being carried out to make the route safe with naturalistic engineering techniques.

Clearly OSM is more accurate than the PDF map of the route provided by the park! 🤣

Hi. Here you set `access=no` to this path ( osm.org/way/23652536#map=17/40.81932/14.43153 ). But it's a part of various hiking/walking routes, e.g. osm.org/relation/9278345#map=16/40.8239/14.4289 which is the main route around the cone.

Are you sure this path is 100% closed?
I haven't been there, but I hope to go in May. Maybe I can do a survey 😁 But it would be nice if apps like komoot etc could route me on it

Hi! I noticed you added a `gay=yes` venue (Wingate Club) in this changeset ( osm.org/way/607729719 ). You may prefer to use the `lgbtq=primary` tag instead osm.wiki/Key:lgbtq which is clearer (IMO) than `gay` tag.

There's also a Telegram chat for LGBTQ people in OSM: osm.wiki/RainbOSM

apologies for the overeager attempt. I've reverted all that changeset now, and I'll be more careful in future.

I think you added too many tiny areas (e.g. osm.org/way/676033622 )

thanks. fixed.

... are you sure about this...

e.g. osm.org/node/6779015311#map=19/-6.16787/39.20686

Is that correct? If not can you update the `name` tag please

You've added a lot of shops with the name `name=local shop

you can change it to noname=yes if you want

oops yeah `noname=yes` would be similar. I like the general case of `X:absent=yes` hence why I thought that was what it was

Hallo. Hier du hast Café 59 als `gay=yes` getaggt ( osm.org/way/125172515#map=16/48.7619/11.4315 ). Ist es eine LGBTQ+ Venue? Wenn ja, ich glaube `lgbtq=primary` ist besser als `gay=yes`

Just a quick, partial reply: This tagging that I've added has nothing to do with my work at Geofabrik (and nothing to do with any OSMF work). This is just something in my spare time that I started playing with over the christmas holiday break.

Yes, I'm aware that national borders are sensitive, and I choose to stand for the OSMF Board, which then limits me in other ways.