"Use place=hamlet for an isolated settlement, typically with less than 100-200 inhabitants (...) For a named area within a larger populated place, such as a town, city or village consider using place=suburb or place=neighbourhood."

"Use place=hamlet para identificar um povoado rural que seja maior que uma place=isolated_dwelling e menor que uma place=village."

"Use place=hamlet for an isolated settlement, typically with less than 100-200 inhabitants (...) For a named area within a larger populated place, such as a town, city or village consider using place=suburb or place=neighbourhood."

Feito (changeset #66828544). Esperemos que ajude.

Perhaps natural=hill would be a better fit?
osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dhill

Perhaps natural=hill would be a better fit?
osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dhill

No doubt it is useful to know the name. But what's the criteria that highlights it as a "peak"? Altitude is 275m, higher, more prominent, elevations exist all around.

What is the criteria for marking a "peak" here? Elevation is ~69m. You have much higher values in hills all around. Namely elevations of 95m in “Facho” NW and of 91m next to the VG "Pederneira" NE (both featuring 20m prominences).

Para o caso de não ser claro: estou a falar das opções em "configurar imagem de fundo" -> "camada de fundo" quando está a editar com o iD.
Nem todas as camadas de fundo estão igualmente certas.

Temo que alinhar as ruas pelo Bing possa estar a piorar ao invés de melhorar. Sugiro que experimente antes o ESRI World Clarity e coteje com o Ortofotos 2004-2006 como referência.

Gruta do Zambujal. Remove dupe, attempt a better placement of the former protected_area according to the drawing/dimensions included in the 1979 decree and tag the end of the specific protection, since the reclassification process stalled 8 years ago and apparently was never completed. True, it still appears on ICNF website and is protected because it is included within other broader protected areas, but is no longer a Natural Monument and probably won’t ever be again considering it’s recent degradation.

Since you show interest 😊, mostly hand checking and adding peaks very close to the border programmatically/blindly discarded based on CAOP limits and which, for the sake of a few feet, may in fact be considered to fall within PT. For that matter, I came to the realization that, for optimal results, I may need to redo the all thing once more since, to cope with memory handling limits of WinProm, I did not go deep enough in Spanish territory, significantly reducing saddle determination in a number of next to the border cases (I am considering using MDT05). Also, while dwindling in Spanish data, I realized that most OSM survey_points there are not declaring sea level “ele” (elevation) as expected but “Altitud elipsoidal”; not to mention that coordinates seem to be slightly offset…

Nakaner -> Perhaps you can hold the "revert" button? After all, this may not be as "bad" as it seemed? I realize now that although I started by conflating the data, the layer was still marked as "dirty" and this somehow generated apprehension.

seichter -> Now that I think of it, it's a bit more complicated than that. In fact, we are talking about boundaries of small localities which in rural areas not necessarily match admin 9 boundaries as they left over unpopulated areas. I acknowledge the argument of efficiency (using split ways). In fact, I used QGIS to aggregate the polygons in the first place from the original many much smaller ones. Do you know the name of the plugin to achieve it?

Would you please then delete all the changesets done today? Thank You.

You have to realize that the closest we have in PT to admin=10 boundaries is info sourced from the Census and updated every 10 years (the last one being from 2011), while admin=9 boundaries are updated yearly and suffered a major change in 2013. Result: they do not match exactly and will not until 2021.

The "import" is confined to one (1) small municipality of Portugal. It may seem "huge" since I was importing from a saved session and JOSM apparently uploaded the nodes one by one. I am following conventions established amidst Portuguese OSM users, as documented here: osm.org/user/ViriatoLusitano/diary

Perhaps I could use an established field instead? Something like:
source:pkey=xxxx
source=osmsync:yyyy

"cml:GlobalId" is needed should the info be updated in the future (it allows the cross matching with entries from the open geodata platform of Lisbon municipality).
Concerning the descriptions, I agree. They need to be better abridged, most are truncated. But that should be easy. The hard part was to match the info with already existing objects.

Obrigado pelo feedback. O processo foi melhorado à medida que melhorei o domínio do plugin conflate. O que pode ter sucedido nos primeiros datasets (em que fiz cópia manual) é que nalguns casos tenha “atalhado”, apagando o nodo anterior quando coincidia com um novo, o que efectivamente, embora por motivo estritamente “prático”, pode constituir uma forma de “descortesia”. Peço a sua compreensão.