Please don't confuse `=pedestrian` and `=footway`. The former is physically capable of two-tracked vehicle traffic.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82239643

6. /changeset/82162838 comment part 2 applies
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82112330

1. Changing the area to multipolygon still doesn't fix /changeset/82112330.
2. `type=building` is used incorrectly. Wrong member roles, and most importantly an `outline` member area is needed which contains the same tags. Those should also be `building:part=*` with `building:min_levels=`.

5. /way/780525775 should be `building=roof`, in lieu of /way/777994864 which you moved by its nodes.

1. Please don't remove ways when you create areas. They are needed for routing, and represent a direct or traveled desire path.
2. Further to 1, `highway=pedestrian` means pedestrian streets that vehicles can physically traveled, and `area=yes` means it can travel omnidirectional (unlike `area:highway=*` linear areas). Usually it's for open "squares". This will not be very true in this area, thus necessitating 1 or more details. I would consider `highway=footway` on `area=yes` instead. On the contrary, some `highway=pedestrian` ways are vehicle access from ordinary roads, which should not be `highway=footway`
3. Please don't remove details and detailed segments of crosswalks.
4. Please don't extend `highway=footway` with crossing tags to elsewhere.

`building=apartments` is the most precise tag. Please don't change them to `building=residential` even if you are not tagging them on your own.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82141729

Please don't remove sidewalk, crosswalk, and entrance information.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82142764

Please don't remove tags you don't understand. Only `motor_vehicle=permit` is allowed. Without `access=no` it means non-motorized users are allowed without legal restriction. changeset/82147714
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82118053

Also those are description, not names. Description in different language are handled similarly, in `description:zh=` and `description:en=`

1. Is it really a building?
2. It should be `tourism=camp_site`.
3. Is it owned & operated by private entity and allowed for private access only? That would be `ownership=private`, `operator:type=private`, and `access=private` respectively.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82047647

Also, please connect crossing ways.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81894504

Thanks for the help

Please don't effect future changes.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81951906

Please don't tag for renderer. Go make an issue somewhere issue to make it "visible".
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81951199

This is implemented incorrectly. Construction features stay `=construction`. Your `note=` does not rectify a `aeroway=runway` from being opened. changeset/81925958
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81918768

Small ones are tagged as `historic=memorial`, not `historic=monument` changeset/81898472
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81890651

Again, please don't destroy information at crosswalks.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81896650

Also don't remove structure tags such as `cutting=yes`
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81895141

Please don't destroy information at crosswalks. A crosswalk is not a sidewalk, has specific nodes, has specific types and traffic features.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81895141

Please don't destroy details at crosswalks. A crosswalk is not a sidewalk, has specific nodes, and those are not separated crossings.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/81894504