Is node/6688499885 a duplicate of node/1783490182 or were there really 2 phone boxes there?

I ask, because a bunch have been decommissioned recently, so I'm resurveying them.

“nice”

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

There's a whole bunch of much weirder values for opening_hours: http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/opening_hours#values
Some of which seem to be invalid syntax.

Might I suggest fixing those, instead?

Or, better, survey your local area.

“… defined value for always open (24/7) then values like "24/7 open" are identical.”

So as I suspected; nothing was gained, and this changeset is pointless.

As you likely know; opening_hours has its own syntax, which must be parsed (rather than mere string-matching). In which case, a correctly implemented parser will yield the same answer anyway. Except that one is more explicit, which you've undone / removed here, which achieving nothing.

Avoiding ambiguity is why I liberally add note:*=* & fixme(*)=* to elements, along with source:*=* .

I'm being considerate of other (& future) mappers.

“… an ice cream parlour (if it only sells ice cream) is not open in the winter months …”

This is a straw-man of my point.

But, yet, hence (for example): node/9117291510

“… It would be a mistake to write opening_hours= closed because the person entering cannot currently eat ice cream. …”

Ideally, but what if you surveyed it during winter, when clearly closed, but there was not enough info to specify the full & correct opening_hours ?

Though, that's simpler, when it's seasonal but merely closed at the moment. Either omit the tag, tag that it's closed right now (today's date), and/or set note:opening_hours with an explanation (preferably along with a fixme:opening_hours=[something like; #SurveyMe during summer]

This actually contradicts your point about hotels; when they're merely closed for the winter, no need to mark them as disused.

In some cases, they were undergoing construction / renovation, with an unknown (to me) completion date (for reopening). Yet, it's still a hotel.

As for building=hotel, that's different & depends. Especially considering building:use=* .

“What can I do to focus on the change record and the added value of "24/7 open" and "24/7" that you have seen?”

I don't understand this question. Rephrase?

Given that no source is specified, for node/5748775581 is that the outer, middle, or inner marker?

Unless you'd like to cite the source, for me to examine myself.

“(no comment)”

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

“(no comment)”

What makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

For way/210509615 (Pierson Place) the combination of

highway=pedestrian
&
motor_vehicle=designated

seems contradictory. In my observation, it's always been foot=designated (and maybe motor_vehicle=private). This (adversely) affects routing. I've noticed this cropping up elsewhere, too.

Though, I notice the element was (more recently) wrongly deleted (& re-added, sans tagging; against osm.wiki/Keep_the_history ), so I'm intending to remedy this as part of restoring the original.

So, more of a note for future reference.

“parcel_pickup”

Thanks for the pointer which led me to amenity=parcel_locker . I'd been wanting to know how to tag such things which I had found locally, but didn't even know the name of them, let alone the tagging scheme.

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

This is changing the topic, without answering previous questions. I take it, then, that nothing was gained, and there was no point in this changeset, which makes it spam and thus warrants reversion.

Re tagging a closed hotel

“it is a mistake to have a symbol for, for example, a hotel appear on the map”

Firstly, please see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
If you don't like a particular rendering, then use a different one, or submit a change to whichever renderer you think is wrong.

Tagging is data problem, not a rendering one. A hotel marked as closed conveys valid (& correct, depending on circumstances) semantics. Not everyone seeking a hotel will want one which is open right now. Marking it as disused, when it's merely closed, is incorrect.

Notice, in your perusal of my past changes, that most are source=survey, or occasionally local knowledge when I learn about it from a well-recognised source.

I agree re prefixes (where applicable), however others (both local & not) don't and become upset when tagging isn't as they think it should be, even if their changes make the tagging no longer reflect reality.

However, depending on which hotels you mean, marking them as closed but not disused is correct; e.g. being closed for the winter (and not necessarily specifying an opening date), but remaining a hotel.
Some even go so far as to make a duplicate element, or delete the element marked as disused (compare deleting shop=vacant). See osm.wiki/Keep_the_history
Not as it should be, but gotta work around human psychology.

Keep in mind, too, that different countries have different tagging conventions. Quite a few things are different, here, or rules which make sense elsewhere don't make sense here.

The tourism market is in flux (and has been for quite a while). Sometimes the fate of a hotel is uncertain, thus minimal changes (which are easy to undo) are wise.

Just because I happen to be a somewhat frequent contributor, among a small handful of locals, doesn't justify treating my changes as merely my personal opinion. Some of them come from discussions with other local mappers, which could be argued as a consensus.

There's also the point that surveying takes a long time (compared to armchair, for a similar count of changes); thus, making sweeping revisions discourages the effort of surveying (which is what's needed, here). No, I'm not the only surveyor to think this.

It would've been prudent to discuss your intended change with the local community first, or better to seek understanding of local conventions, before performing an island-wide search-and-replace.

Another mechanical edit?

But, to what end? What was gained?

24/7 open is more explicit (since there are instances of 24/7 closed).

In that case: osm.wiki/Good_practice

👍

Welcome to OSM, then. Thanks for your contributions.

StreetComplete is only for surveying (physically there, in person, at the time; hence source=survey). For changes from memory, please use an editor which allows you to specify the source, and set the value appropriately. I can suggest some, if you're unfamiliar.

For distinct areas, split changes into different changesets. This should avoid country-spanning bounding-boxes.

Seems like a purely mechanical edit, too.

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Seems like an automated / mechanical edit, without a cited discussion, to me.