Hi,
"landwet =prairie humide" is not a common tag - could you check that? I guess you wanted to add wetland = something.

Hi,
you added the tag "pridané" to several buildings - is this a mistake or does it have a meaning?

I reverted the changesets adding the buildings. It seems that the cleanest way to add them again is drawing them by hand from aerial images - it's not too many so this won't take long.

Hi,
the tagging of parking along roads has been changed recently.

Some of the tags you used here don't exist, e.g.

parking:condition:right=free ->
parking:right:fee = no

parking:lane:capacity:right=8
-> parking:right:capacity=8

See osm.wiki/Street_parking

I changed a couple of them but don't know if I caught all of them.

Hi,
this is an old edit and there are still no defined "converter:*" tags. No tag like this is currently used in any place.

According to current schemes I suggest to

- change generator:method=motor_generator
to converter = motor_generator

- change
generator:output:electricity = 124 MW to rating = 124 MVA

- remove generator:source =electricity - this is already clear from power=converter

Hi,
width:min / width:max are keys that are not used in any other place. We do have width:start and width:end for exactly this purpose. I just fixed that on 4 ways.
osm.wiki/Proposal:Suffix_start_and_end

Please improve your internal QA procedures. I'm fixing spelling mistakes in keys made by Grab employees almost every day!

Please read this statement of the
OSMF Licence Working Group regarding cc-by licensed data:
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

I can have a look later today. It seems we need to revert 23 changesets with > 200k objects.

I strongly suggest to not to try to clean up this import of >100.000 unchecked objects by hand. Instead, I propose to do a full revert, so that this data can be uploaded again, after checking and fixing all the issues in a clean way.

For future uploads, could you make sure that quality checks are done before uploading? The OSM database is not the right place to dumb any messy data and hope that somebody else will clean it up later. The various QA tools already generated thousands of errors and warnings because of this upload which in turn keeps other mappers busy checking what is going on here.

Btw, if you say "the task has been set up", this seems to be some sort of mapping within a larger group? In that case there are some guidelines to follow: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

Hi,
you uploaded this area without valid tags and a huge number of "gpx" tags that should not be in OSM. Could you check that?

osm.org
/way/1175759148/history

Something went wrong here. You uploaded a huge amount of irregular shapes here. Please make sure you upload buildings in their real shape and do not upload your raw output of whatever "AI" tool you use.

Also, please check for buildings that were already mapped before - there are many overlapping with buildings that were already mapped in their proper shape earlier.

This seems to be an import of data.
What is the source of the data and is its license compatible with OSM and ODbL?
Where can we find the mandatory documentation? See osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Hi,
something went wrong here. You added hundreds of buildings with many foreign tags that should not appear in OSM.
This seems to be an import of data - where can we find the mandatory documentation? See osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Hi,
it looks like something went wrong with these bus stops, many of them got some foreign tags which don't look like they should be in OSM:

stop_desc =
stop_lat = 31.703301
stop_lon = 34.975458

Danke für den Hinweis, ich hatte nicht nach älteren Tags geschaut. Die waren da noch eindeutiger.
Das passende ist also
parking:right:maxstay:conditional = 2 h @ 08:00-16:00

The tag "lane_marking" doesn't exist. The correct spelling is "lane_markings". Just fixed this for you.

I don't think we have an established tag yet. A quick scan through taginfo turns up:

mobile_phone_coverage
coverage:mobile_phone:att
coverage:mobile_phone:verizon
cellular_signal

All of them are used only a few times or by a single user. I don't think adding the operators is really useful, because the important information is the possibility of emergency calls.

Please improve your internal QA routines. I'm fixing spelling errors of tags introduced by Grab almost every day.