Why did you remove the loading docks?

This change set comment doesn’t really tell you anything about what was done in this commit. Next time please try to better describe what was done in the change set comment. For more information see
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Next time please leave a change set comment explaining what you did in the commit and why, for more details see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Also why does the “Bunnies Encounter” have species:wikipedia=en:Liger tagging on it?

Oh, sorry I thought that you were the one adding this feature, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Happy mapping

Question, the commit message is a bit confusing, does “angepasst” mean that this once existed at this location or not because if this doesn’t exist any more I don’t think it should be added, maybe see https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ if you want to map historical features.

Can you please respond

What’s the source for this

is it 1 or 2 atm's

please respond

please respond

please respond

please respond

what is the source for this commit??

because by a cursory glance at the various features added I have a feeling that at least part of this commit is additions that do not exist in reality. for example this commit adds English named hot5els/guest houses in the middle of Africa, while its possible that such a thing exists I doubt that it is real. this also adds a dog park that when you look at the default imagery layer for the area (somewhere in Nebraska) seems to be in the middle of a marsh or swamp of some sort, so unless some construction has happened in the area since the imagery updated (I dont know when it last updated) that along with the fact that the feature is called doggy park which doesn't seem like a name for a park (from my experience in the US they usually are named after a person, movement etc. and not just their purpose alone).

typo:
tagging not raging

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new one in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) would add a new pedestrian area using the tags of area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change.
Happy mapping

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new one in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) would add a new pedestrian area using the tags of area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change.
Happy mapping

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new one in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) would add a new pedestrian area using the tags of area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change.
Happy mapping

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new one in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) would add a new pedestrian area using the tags of area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change.
Happy mapping

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new one in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) would add a new pedestrian area using the tags of area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change.
Happy mapping

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new one in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) would add a new pedestrian area using the tags of area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change.
Happy mapping