level0 was just the easiest do make this change.

Yes, in my scheme there would be many partially overlapping areas. Yes, this has downsides. However one big upside is the simplicity for the data model, and widespread support for this way of mapping areas in most OSM tools.

It's only a new tagging scheme (cf. osm.wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders ). I am working on a data consumer for this scheme

für `artificial`? Noch nicht.

ein moderneres, geschlechtesneutrales alternativ zu “man made”. Ich hab beides eingetragen. 🙂

Ach ja! Danke. Ich hab es repariert osm.org/changeset/115245335

I notice you added `gay=yes` to osm.org/node/4951306621 I've changed that osm.org/changeset/115123455 to be `lgbtq=primary` because that's a better tag osm.wiki/Key:lgbtq 🙂

Es gibt hier ein Paar diskussionen:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=843823
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70078

Hallo. Weil `natural=water` besser ist. Es ist Wasser, d.h. `natural=water` ist korrekt. (und es ist auch ein Fluß, d.h. `water=river`). Mit diese Tagging-schema, alle wasser fläche sind mit `natural=water` getagged.

Du kannst mehr über diese mapping Projekt lesen: osm.wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization

Es tut mir leid. Ich hab ein Fehler gemacht. ich habe es zuruckgesetzt
osm.org/changeset/114551665

Entschultigung, es sieht so in Bing aus, dass sie zusammen verbindet.

Did you make a mistake with objects like this:
osm.org/node/5335947010#map=19/41.64499/-71.46341

you don't need to add `key=value` 😉

hi, you don't need to ad such advertisments in OSM

Hi, you added `shop=primary` to this node ( osm.org/node/3759828395 ), but you had previously tagged it as a a bar (`amenity=bar`). Is this one place *really* a bar *and* a convience store? Both?

sorry is this real? I see nothign on the aerial imagery, and this looks like spam.

I have deleted it here osm.org/changeset/111322632

huh. I cannot remember why I changed the name. I presume there was a sign at the reception office....

Hello, you added a lot of "viewpoints" here. What's going on? Are those really view points? Did you just want the numbers to show up? If these are not view points, then we should delete these.

so close! 🤣

Congratulations!

I don't know of any, and I don't think it would help a lot because of the trees. However, LIDAR might work and go through trees, if that's available.