Hey CaldeiraG! This changeset adds intersection nodes between footways and underground service highway which shouldn't be necessary (they can't intersect as service highway has layer=-1 while footways have default, i.e. layer=0). Could you take another look please?

Hi ImRodry and welcome to OSM! For any further changes, please specify information source which helps a lot when verifying correctness and legality of your changes; see osm.wiki/Key:source for more information and (non-exhaustive) examples. Note that I'm talking about changeset tag (not node/way/relation tag) in particular. Thanks a lot, happy mapping ;)

Hi RazorWind! This changeset has a few minor notes related to parkings mapping:
1. some parking areas were removed despite providing useful information, e.g. Parque da Cidade Universitária had a name, capacity, access, and showed the general outline; it would've been better not to remove the areas but to add those new parkings as amenity=parking_space instead (see osm.wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space); note that mapping each individual parking space, although possible, usually makes little sense if a group (row) of spaces have the same attributes, as you can just use capacity=* (also helpful when calculating the total capacity of the whole parking=surface area as you can simply sum up the parking space capacities); other tags like orientation=* could be added to parking spaces too
2. for those new parkings along the streets, it's better to additionally tag them with parking=* (e.g. street_side, lane), orientation=* (e.g. parallel, diagonal, perpendicular), capacity=* (if discernable from the imagery), which not only improves the quality of your changes but also makes those areas less prominent when rendered to avoid cluttering the view (at least with the default OSM Carto style)
3. when mapping underground parking entrances, the element that marks the "walls" around the entrance is usually (in my experience) mapped as barrier=retaining_wall, with right (lower) wall side directed inward, to face the highway; mapping it as man_made=embrakment is misleading as embarkments generally have a slope and support highways on top of them, not those going underground

Hi Ride3ree! In this particular case, the footway is tagged with `indoor=yes` and `level=0` which hint to the fact that it's not out on the street but somewhere inside the building. The building here is the underground part of Vasco da Gama commercial center, and the footway is inside this corridor: osm.org/relation/14105616.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141979974

Hi Ride3ree! The added intersection nodes between a footway and Avenida Dom João II highways don't seem to be valid as that footway is actually an underground one. The proper fix would be to e.g. add a `layer=-1` tag to that footway so that the editor doesn't complain that the highways intersect. In the future, please refrain from such changes unless you can confirm (e.g. via survey) that they're correct. Thanks for your contribution overwise, keep it up! ;)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141979974

Hi! I assume this wasn't intentional, but you've changed the geometry of a highway here: osm.org/way/308995893. Could you please fix it up?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140770877

No worries, should be quite easy to rectify. If you're using the iD editor, you can right-click on a node that the building and the power line share and select "Disconnect" from the popup menu (alternatively, left-click on a node to select it, and then press D). Once this is done, there will be 2 nodes (one for the building and another one for the power line), and you'll need to delete the power line one (since it wasn't there before). Then repeat this for all the shared nodes.

Hi there! Seems like you've made an unintentional change to the power line and it's now going through a part of new building's perimeter. Could you detach it from the building please? The new buildings having layer=-1 is also a bit odd, what was the intention there? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140581857

Hi! In case you don't know, there's an initiative to map municipal parking with proposed tagging scheme. See osm.wiki/User:Mikedld/Portugal/Estacionamento (for general info) and osm.wiki/User:Mikedld/Portugal/Estacionamento/Lisboa (for Lisbon status). Take a look at other parking meters I've added around this area (along Avenida da Liberdade) for examples.

Hi there! Judging from Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1088063255049993&focus=photo) there appears to be a gate which I assume leads to the service road you've removed. Are you sure that there is no road there? The mere fact that you don't have access to it doesn't mean it's not there, in which case removing it isn't the right thing to do. Please see osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dgate for a proper way to map a gate. Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138753701

Hey kcpels! Only managed to look at it now. Per wiki, only the part of the highway covered by the building needs to be a tunnel, so it's better to split that way once more and not mark the lower part coming out of the building as such ;) Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138040744

Hi kcpels! Adding layer=-1 to way #193901750 doesn't seem correct. If your intention was to tag part of the way as going through the building, there's a proper way of doing so using osm.wiki/Key:tunnel. Would you please take another look? Thanks!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138040744

Reverted in changeset 136651757.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136447222

I don't think this was a proper edit. It's not like the whole building is a swimming pool, looking at https://www.cm-odivelas.pt/autarquia/contactos/espacos-de-cultura-e-desporto/poi/piscina-municipal-de-odivelas it appears that the pool is only a part of it under the light/white roof. Could you please take another look? If you don't really know which part of the building holds the pool (or pools?) it might be better to revert this change.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136447222