Я изменил тэг на landuse=construction. Спасибо, что отметили место сноса жилых домов и нового строительства!

Довлет, этот мавзолей уже есть на карте, не надо добавить (повторить) объект сам, надо просто добавить желаемый тэг уже существующему объекту.

THANK YOU!!! iI could not figure out what I did wrong when drawing this island.

This is not a secondary road. It is a dirt road paralleling the border with Afghanistan used only by the State Border Service of Turkmenistan to patrol the border. It should not be marked as a secondary road; it should be marked as a restricted access service road. Please make the appropriate edits. Thank you for your help with the OSM map of Turkmenistan!

I am therefore deleting the "residential area" way in Etrek that duplicates the boundary I drew some time ago.

"This tag should only be used for areas dedicated to and actually used for residential purposes. It should not be used...as additional tag for urban administrative units"

There is no need to add "residential area" ways to a municipality that has already been identified and had a boundary drawn. In fact, the wiki article expressly advises NOT to do that. Please read this: osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential#When_not_to_use

You are drawing "residential areas" in villages, towns, or cities that are already designated, i.e., they have boundaries drawn around them and are tagged as villages, towns, or cities. Adding "residential area" is redundant and the OSM wiki recommends not to do that. As I pointed out above, "It should not be used...
as additional tag for urban administrative units", which is exactly what you are doing.

This tag should only be used for areas dedicated to and actually used for residential purposes. It should not be used

for areas with buildings of unknown use
as an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around being observable
as additional tag for urban administrative units

There is no need to mark as residential areas municipalities that have already been demarcated. Please see osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential#When_not_to_use

See, for example, this: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=pXMjhdasuKz6rpdvs4R8LA&focus=photo&lat=40.03026539999773&lng=53.5620932&z=17

Please do not modify the route of the M37 based on obsolete imagery. Please use the updated ground-level imagery available via Mapillary. I am reverting your edits and restoring the correct track of this road.

I am therefore deleting this extraneous "residential area" since the city is already clearly tagged.

It reads: This tag should only be used for areas dedicated to and actually used for residential purposes. It should not be used

for areas with buildings of unknown use
as an abstract wrapper around buildings grouping them without a difference between residential landuse within and other landuses around being observable
as additional tag for urban administrative units

It is not necessary to mark cities separately as residential areas. Please read osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dresidential#When_not_to_use

Andy, I have used this (and seen others using it) when buildings were not rendered properly over grounds in the standard layer. Perhaps the various upgrades of the rendering software have rendered this approach obsolete. In any case, the intent is to have buildings appear above the ground, which in my experience has been problematic in the past. Best regards, apm-wa

This is the proper method. Please read this: osm.wiki/Key:layer

In other words, the buildings are rendered ABOVE the ground, not below the ground :-)

This is not strange. Because buildings are by default set to layer=0, if you set grounds at layer=-1, the buildings and grounds are rendered correctly in the standard layer.

Pagta zawod или Pagta kabul ediş harmanhansy?