PLEASE put this to proper discussion and documentation before starting to add dozens of new tags. This scheme is incompatible to all the tools implementing one of the three (!) existing tagging schemes. Not even simple things like destinations in different languages are compatible to the current scheme.

Hi,
'openable' is a tag currently notin use. Barriers that can be removed are typically tagged as 'movable'.

Hi,
may I ask you for a full documentation of this tagging scheme you use since several years? Right now you're the only one who can make sense out of these tags, e.g. there are letters in the number suffixes that nobody else uses.

Please pay attention to the direction of waterways - the way in OSM has to point in the same direction as the water flows.

We don't yet have a proper scheme for such coordinates, apart from the 'utm' tag. For the moment I'd suggest to use a tag like "coordinates" including all information:

coordinates = 12345678 9876543 XYZ

XYZ would be the system of measurement, e.g. ITM (which seems to be the current version of the Irish Grid)

Hi,
could you check the recycling tags you added here? There's a list in the wiki with the tags that should be used:
amenity=recycling#Recycling

Hi,
the keys you added contain spaces and units - this is not common and doesn't follow usual tagging schemes.

I also have trouble making sense of the easting/northing - these coordinates seem to point to somewhere close to Chester, but not Belfast.

All of them, apart from
parking:left = separate
parking:right = no

Hi,
please don't add parking tags to a whole street if they apply only to a very short portion of it. In this case, no parking tags are needed on the road because all parking has been mapped separately due to the varying restriction on each part.

Please check your recent edits, there are many tags with spelling mistakes like 'sourcee' or 'water way'.

Hi,
"maxweight:left" is not a common tag - where does this maxweight apply?

That's how I understood the tag. And I'd say rental advertisements like these are definitely out of scope of OSM. There is already a lot of spam in this respect by people who try to use OSM to advertise their real estate which gets removed regularly.

If there's a permanent sign with the number of the owner of the building, that might be worth of a tag, e.g.
owner:phone.

Hi,
I don't think that adding private power meters is within the scope of OSM. In general we do not map installations in private residential buildings for privacy reasons, and this seems to be one.
I'd like to ask you to ask for some opinions on that in the forums.

Hi,
I see that you introduce a large set of new tags to describe monuments.
In general this seems to be a good idea with a reasonable tagging scheme.
Nevertheless I think it would be good to have this scheme fully documented and discussed in the community before there are too many objects added.

Hi,
could you check the other highway reference tags? The spelling of
'ref:au.QLD.noosa.bridge.assetno' doesn't agree with the common one
e.g. "ref:AU-QLD:ipswich:culvert"
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ref%3AAU-

Hi,
could you check this relation, it got a incomplete "charge:condition" tag.

If you like, you can add it, but it needs to be more specific. The POI is a restaurant, so I wouldn't expect any kind of rental there.
I see how someone might assume some rental shop here, but I think the description is better - it's very unlikely that any software shows the negative "no rental", but is much more likely to show descriptions.

I know that these tags come from a preset. The problem is that the tagging scheme has neither been discussed nor documented, but is being pushed forward by a single user. Due to the missing documentation and discussion, there is no and will be no support from any tool.

In fact I can't see anything complicated with the signs you linked. All fit in the common tagging scheme nicely - as said, with an extension to mark the sign as roundabout-style.

It's impossible to discuss this in a changeset comment, I propose to move it to a thread in the community forum.
We might find that we actually need a new scheme, but then it has been discussed and a documentation can be written.

Please check the 'rickshaw' tags you added. These are not in use in OSM. Did you mean auto_rickshaw or cycle_rickshaw?

Hi,
this destination sign got again about 20 new keys that are not used in other places.

There's a problem with the numbered tags:
- I wouldn't use numbered tags on a single-panel sign, if you want to have a change to tag different panels on other signs. Numbers are more or less the only possibility to do that.
- the numbers don't match in the left direction: The 'pier' symbol is matched with 'Tarragona', but in fact all symbols are equally in a separate line.

This simple sign can be easily described in the existing tagging schemes - with one new, additional tag to note that it shows a roundabout with 5 exits.

node/12645204191