*protect_class, but they did fix it correctly.

"
Hello Daniel,

I admit I made a mistake, for all protect_class taggs for most of the protected areas I edited.

About the source, I am still consulting a lawyer , so far she told me that if I use openstreetmap data to draw boundaries, OSM should be part of the source.

Best regards,

Paul-Emmanuel
"
The typo in the tag is not a big deal. Don't worry.

As for the source, I am still refering to the source in your changeset.. I mean, you should say what satelite layer you mapped on top of (Bing, Esri, Esri Clarity, Mapbox, Maxar Premium), but you don't need to say you drew on top of the existing OSM data in your OSM changeset. If you also used the "OpenStreetMap (Standard)" layer (what you see on the right hand side), you can choose to say so, but it's not that important.

For using OSM's data outside of OSM, see
osm.org/copyright

If you have questions or want more information on licensing either your data for OSM or the OSM data for elsewhere, it may be best to contact the Licensing Working Group (LWG);
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group
(see also for FAQ etc.)

In addition to your or their name, you can write "local knowledge" as your source.

I did find a typo in your tagging, namely "protection_class" should be "protect_class" - only "protection_title" is spelled out fully.
I assume you are refering to
osm.wiki/Key:protect_class
We could fix this on all of your edits if that's indeed the case.

Ok. How did you collect the data? Is this your (or others') local knowledge, or did you survey (go out and look around) every one of these?

Did the conservation project give you explicit permission to use the data in OpenStreetMap?

Hey TheNet1996,

Why did you add restriction relations to a barrier feature? This seems redundant, as providing access tags should already cause routers not to route through the barrier feature for relevant modes of transport.

Regards,

Daniel

"Hello, there is gate and access=no for bike and hikers. Is it right? Routing is impossible here. Thanks"

Ref osm.org/note/3153248

Editors and PDOK have 7.5cm imagery available since last year. You can also use Esri's 'enhanced' imagery (essentially the same imagery with some filters applied) which should be available in most places, though on some zoom levels may show older imagery (so be careful).

cc: vladaboitsik; Mapbox
https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/366#issuecomment-1109635771

Hey Heliotrope,

Try to continue using good changeset comments, please.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Renas Azad,

Use good changeset comments, please.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Marc0Aureli0,

This changeset has been reverted in
osm.org/changeset/120204328

Do not create empty nodes, please. This does not belong in OpenStreetMap.
iD should prevent you from doing so.

Could you explain what you intended to do?

Regards,

Daniel

Hey fnzilani,

Use good changeset comments, please.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Regards,

Daniel

Hey moses moturi,

Use good changeset comments, please.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Regards,

Daniel

Hey santosbike,

Use good changeset comments, please.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Regards,

Daniel

Hey tiongiedca,

Use good changeset comments, please.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Regards,

Daniel

See for more information
osm.wiki/Names
(Name is the name only, Names are not for descriptions)

Hey Paul,

Could you provide proper sources for your changesets, please? Your name is not a source.

Also, refering to yourself in changeset comments is redundant, all contributions can already be traced back to your account.

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Lisawie,

Congratulations on changeset 120120120 and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Have fun mapping and travelling! :-)

Regards,

Daniel

Reverted changesets: 120170622 120170533 120170432 120170256 120170062 120169901 120169688 15172478

Changeset comments: 120170622 15172478

Hey there,

I have reverted your changes in
osm.org/changeset/120180562
as there are unverifiable (non-physical, no source specified).

Specify a source for your changes from which can be concluded these are physical objects, please.

Regards,

Daniel