Hi,
way/5464605
got the tag "liye = yes" - looks like some spelling mistake. Could you check?
Cheers, Jan

Hi,
you added the tag "railway:bidirectionnal" on 145 ways. 'bidirectional' is spelled with a single 'n' - could you correct that?
Cheers, Jan

Hi,
der Weg hat jetzt ein boat=yes und ein boat=no, was stimmt denn?
way/444597028
Gruß, Jan

Hi,
found two ways with a strange tag like 385370263C = 385370264D
Is there a meaning behind it?
Cheers, Jan

way/130587421
way/171881984

In my opinion: yes.
:conditional is a well-known and versatile syntax. E.g. the German version of lanes:psv already points to it. It is used about twice as much as the undocumented :times for both lanes:psv and lanes:bus

Hi,
the tag lanes:bus:times=Mo-Sa 07:30-09:00 is rather uncommon. You can use the ":conditional" syntax for this, e.g.
lanes:bus:conditional = 1 @ Mo-Sa 07:30-09:00
Cheers, Jan

Hi,
I found that your edits use a lot of uncommon tagging. Just to name a few tags you just invented:
add:brgy
addr :street
addr: brgy
addr: stret
addr:brgy addr:purok1
addr:sito
addr;purok

OSM can only work, if everybody uses the same tagging. If not, no software is able to read the data and produce meaningful maps. Please review your edits and let us know if you need help.

Jan

Hallo,
woher kommt denn dieses Chaos an highway=footway hier? Es gibt hier überhaupt keine Wege, nur Flächen, die bereits seit langem als highway=pedestrian erfasst waren (mit den jeweiligen Level-Angaben).

Hallo,
warum hat z.B. dieser Weg ein layer=-1 bekommen? Er befindet sich an der Oberfläche und nicht unterirdisch.
way/384153100
Die restlichen layer und level Angaben wundern mich auch, die Hauptwache hat nur drei unterirdische Ebenen - so war es auch früher gemappt, jetzt gibt es viele layer=-4
Gruß, Jan

Sure, I've just changed it to
180 minutes @ (Sa 09:00 - 18:00)
way/262432212

You can test such conditions at http://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/

Hi,
could you please check this edit? The lake was already mapped, now there are two objects overlapping each other.
relation/6545572#map=16/24.5863/97.6701

Jan

Could you please comment on this? Please be aware that your changes might be deleted for the following reasons:

E.g. this node: node/4392682515

What are the sources for your edits? E.g. google earth is not a valid source for OSM.

What are all these tags on the almost 500 nodes you added? They do not follow any accepted OSM tagging rules.

Please provide meaningful changeset comments.

@alphensebezorger: This is also the tagging I would use.

Hi,
did you check all those 700 imported nodes for validity? I can see several issues here:
- there are keys that do not belong into the OSM database, like COM_NOM and PREF_NOM.
- in many cases I checked, the nodes are not in the correct place
- in many cases, like the one linked below, the actual village already has been mapped in great detail.
node/4419990299#map=16/4.8355/23.2373
Please consult the general guidelines for important, and review all these edits.
osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines
Jan

Sorry, da ist der Link verloren gegangen... Diesen Way meinte ich: way/443943242
Jan

Hi,
the tagging on this road looks rather confusing: way/444294381. Could you describe it in words so that we can fix it?
Jan

Hi,
you invented the tag 'chimneys:colour' - we didn't have this in the database yet. I think the singular 'chimney:colour' is better. Would you mind changing this? In fact, the key 'chimney' already exists.
Jan

Hi,
you added several relations with a lot of foreign tags. Did you really want to add them to OSM or was it a mistake?
Jan

Hallo,
Dieser Way hat kein "echtes" Tag und auch eines mit Tippfehler. Kannst du das korrigieren?

Gruß, Jan

Could you explain the tag 'maxstay:Sa=180'? This key is not used in other places. Maybe some conditonal tag?