Are the playground equipment gone?

1. Please don't mistaken `=pedestrian` as `=footway` and `=service.`. They are physically usable by vehicles, and are mainly used by pedestrians.

Please don't make random areas `=park`.

Please don't delete the site perimeter.

Please excercise the utmost caution from typo of `highway=construction`

This is not how `=route` is used. There is already a `=stop_area`. relation/6531387

Ok. For this one, Lin Fa Kung HIll is not a "hill", rather a part of the hillside above Lin Fa Kung temple previously populated with huts. I'm not sure the mountains behind are in fact named.

@SomeoneElse Seems to be a misunderstanding here. It was wrongly moved to the last location in https://osmcha.org/changesets/119518081 by a deleted user, away from way/1049175482 the `=ridge` . I'm restoring it now.

Please don't delete closed businesses directly. You are removing the shop space, and the address. Change it to a plain "point" to keep it.

* 3. `seamark:radar_transponder:*=` and `radio_transponder:band=`.

1. Relations rule 1: Relations are not categories. Only acceptable ones are directional antennas pointing at each other, and a phased array or similar.
2. Names rule 1: Names are not description labels. Don't invent composite names. This is Tagging For Renderer. We don't need the likes of `name:en=Trash bin_BeijingTiananmenSquare_altitude1m`
3. The definition of short to long wave can be ambiguous. This is undesirable. Either use exact `frequency=`, or the likes of `telescope:spectrum=`; or look into how `communication:radio:*=` , `communication:amateur_radio:*=`, and ` `seamark:radio_station:*=` are formulated.

Please don't make features not even funded and tendered as `=construction`.

Sorry it's actually a case of forgetting to split the other sidewalks.

Hey this is not "spurious. They were a landmark, still visible from aerial imagery.

Then you should only upload after you have corrected. Not deleting all of them.

Can you please explain why you are deleting all of them?

Unfortunately Carto doesn't render `=bollard` line yet. As a side note, `=kerb` was removed too.
Another issue here is they are used to separate two directions besides other, meaning the `=cycleway` have to be splitted as well. Sometimes they are spaced widely that a bike can easily pass through, unlike the case on roads for cars. The gain in functionality and usability is more limited to roads. So I'm not going to do this yet.

How about doing some research first?
~800 https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bollard=flexible elsewhere --- I suggested `installation=` to `cycle_barrier:installation` exactly to overcome this problem.
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/separation was `protection=` before. The `=not_required` prevents users from showing what's at the edge for their safety when there's nothing in parallel.
Dozen of https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=hazard=incline and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=hazard=slope variations. Curiously the proposal didn't handle this. Maybe because `hazard:bicycle=` is better, however this is already on a `=cycleway`. And you can complain there is only 2 `hazard:bicycle=incline`.
I discussed how to handle different `inlet=kerb_*=` in osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Inlets_proposal#What_about_kerb_grate_without_opening_in_kerb? by using `kerb:inlet=` where this situation illustrates the issue of handling a mix of them.
Two-sided kerbs and gurad rails were raised in osm.wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#"Double_sided"_kerbs and osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dguard_rail#Tagging_guard_rails_with_two_"inner"_sides where `two_sided=yes` was said not common for the latter yet. `sides=` is already used in `advertising=`. It's possible to have 3, 4, and more sides.
And I don't have time to draw every `=fence` and `=bollard` out. It's the same as `kerb:*=`.
If you have a "more established" solution I'd love to know.

Can you explain what are you doing?

R33 already exists in relation/6928194 which should be modified. You duplicated the two.