Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the POI. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the POI. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the restaurant. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12,
It looks like your edit to this building actually removed the building=yes tag from the building, but the feature is also a building so the building=yes tag should stay as is. I have fixed this case for you here but please be more careful in future edits to not remove existing tags to features if they are still relevant for the feature.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the restaurant. In addition this is a restaurant and not a bar. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the restaurant. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the shop. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the restaurant. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are offices in the floors above the restaurant. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this is another case where the entire building is not the poi so its best to place the poi in a node instead and leave the building as is since there are apartments in the floors above the restaurant. I have fixed this case on the map for you.

Hi pabi12, this changeset as well as a lot of your others in this area I see that you are merging node pois with buildings but in most of the cases I see, the buildings do not only contain the poi, rather the buildings have apartments in the upper floors etc so its best to leave the poi as a node instead of merging it with the building since the building contains more than just the one poi - also the building is not named after the poi... I have made the correction on the map but please in future edits note this important distinction to avoid these types of edits. If the poi inside a building is not the entire building then leave the poi as a node outside of the building itself.

thanks for the suggestion! I just updated it.

thanks for the information, yes it looks like thats the case. I just updated it to reflect the two entities. thanks!

Hi anon950, thank you for your edits! Just wanted to point out to make sure when you are making edits to existing features on the map that you make sure to check to see if any existing tags to the feature are still relevant so you dont inadvertently remove tags when making edits. For example, your edit to the Nightingale Apartments, looks like you forgot to transfer over the building:levels=6 tag from the existing feature to your new one. I have already fixed this but just double check things in the future. Also could just edit the existing feature instead of deleting and adding a new one to make your edit would be another way to ensure you dont inadvertently remove tags and helps preserve the change history of a feature.

Thanks ZLima12, great update on the names that looks good to me. Ive seen it like this for other universities that have multiple disparate campus areas but are administered as one larger university entity but open to ideas on the multipolygon concept.

thats a good question, the studio map didnt make it clear either way only the label on the building was the number. I know other studio lots tend to just name buildings like: "Building 1230" etc but unclear how they are doing it here. The numbers are all unique and dont repeat which makes me assume its a building number instead of an address based on a street but certainly it could what you suggest as well. Feel free to make updates if you think its an addr number.

Hi thirashima, thanks for updating closed pois. For pois that are now empty, you can mark the amenity as disused using this: disused:amenity=restaurant which follows the schema here: disused=*: instead of changing the name tag to 'closed'. Otherwise your change is saying this restaurant is still open and its name is now called "closed" which I dont think is what you meant to do.

Hi tbo47! Thanks for updating pois that are no longer open. Just a quick question, for cases where some of the poi attributes are still valid such as in this case the address for this now empty restaurant, it would be helpful to leave the tags on the poi that are still relevant and just remove the ones that are no longer relevant instead of deleting the whole thing. So here you could keep all the address tags and even the amenity tag and set it to disused:amenity=restaurant. This also helps keep the history of this location intact. what do you think?

Hi AmpereBEEP, thanks for adding this proposed railway. Since it does not yet exist nor is it under construction yet I suggest you also add the 'proposed' tags to it to follow the osm schema here: proposed=* and here: osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Hi jmapb, if I remember correctly it was originally a multipolygon with Building B and when I separated them into distinct structures I must have left the multipolygon tag on Building A by mistake. So no real reason for it it can be updated to a normal building if you like.