hola. podrías volver a describir este conjunto de cambios? "revisión de etiquetas", pero hay casi 100 nuevos elementos de tipo "way". parece una importación.

hola. escribes "revisión de etiquetas", pero osmcha dice »No tags were changed in this changeset.«
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114542723

maybe, that is until we understand how to use maps.me to complete the information of existing objects, it might be worth considering contributing your names as notes. an other option might be adding a 'fixme' to your new "duplicated" object, clearly stating it is meant as an enhancement to something already existing.
I'm not a user of maps.me, so I can't provide you with better hints. if I were you, I would check with some of the community resources. https://forum.openstreetmap.org, https://help.openstreetmap.org,

replying to my last above comment, johanemilsson pointed me at this resource: https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/water-polygons.html
(thanks Johan!)

you see: unless we manage to get access to the IGNTG maps, the only trustworthy sources are the Spanish text of the "gaceta". they are often difficult to decipher. I think the only reasonable thing to do is to forget about it until OSM gets access to the official data in digital format. please do not edit stuff just to make the map look better, "smoother" as you say. sometimes ((very) often) official borders are edgy.

p.s.: this you're mentioning is a **very** old source, January 1984 is almost 38 years ago, and is relative to the Colón Province, while here we're looking at a border in the Pacific, between two provinces along a border established in January 2014, not yet 8 years ago. so again: what source did you use here?

I see. for such public domain sources, have you considered using a map warper service? like https://mapwarper.net/

indeed, one »can't revert changesets unless they were the last changeset to edit something«, no matter which tool you use. JOSM offers partial reverting, which is a time intensive operation.
(what official maps? you did not mention them in the sources. remember we do not have permission to use maps from the IGNTG, we can only read laws and process the text description.)

(please don't take this as a personal remark) but to "make the boundary more smooth", a boundary defined by laws and decrees, that's a silly thing to do, I hope you convene. I know how to revert changesets, but do me a favour and please do revert this yourself, and please do this for any other similar "prettifying" edits you performed on administrative borders. thanks you.

yep, just recently someone updated the international boundary line, I didn't check what their sources and logic were, but I don't particularly care about borders … as long as people don't invent rivers to support a copied border.
it's unfortunate that all levels of administration here extend to the country border, because it's more difficult to produce a "panama shape" from administrative data.

hi. you changed here the position of nodes that define province borders, nodes that fall in the sea. what is the source you used? you only state the imagery used. so how could you correct the position of these nodes?

hi. you changed here the position of nodes that define province borders, nodes that fall in the sea. what is the source you used? you only state the imagery used. so how could you correct the position of these nodes?

Hi, I checked again and I feel obliged to update and correct: the Panamanian provinces (level 4), districts (l:6), and "corregimientos" (l:8) all extend into the sea, up to the national border (l:2).

hola. it's maybe a mistake in the software you're using, but why would this café have two different names, one for English speaking people and then for the local Spanish speaking population?

hola … porqué `layer=-1` al edificio Way: 383928384 del café Buckle Tip?

well, if their name is in English, it's just their `name`, not `name:en`, the name meant for English speaking people.
please do ask on some help community how to add properties to already existing entities. the way you're doing it now … someone has to fix your contribution.

well, it's not a café in the sense of café as said in the wiki. you see that. ask on help.openstreetmap.org, state your question explaining "the closest you could find", and ask for other opinions, more informed than mine. I can only tell you this doesn't look right.

this one is an amenity inside an amenity: a café node inside a café way. moreover, you have given it an "english" name as if the name could be translated. unfortunately in this country there's hardly anybody else doing any reviews, and I do not have so much energy.

hey, it looks like "raro" (curious, suspicious, surprising) all these "cafés" you have added where I don't see the building that would contain all these "generally informal place with sit-down facilities selling beverages and light meals and/or snacks."
can you confirm your mapping please?

oh, no reaccioné al "si quieres". pues no sé. yo sólo mapeo intentando seguir las reglas de mapeo. mis sugerencias son "si es un objeto físico, también debe ser un solo objeto de database" y "cuidado con escoger las etiquetas basad en el renderizado."