Please don't delete closed businesses directly. You are removing the shop space, and the address. Change it to a plain "point" to keep it.

* 3. `seamark:radar_transponder:*=` and `radio_transponder:band=`.

1. Relations rule 1: Relations are not categories. Only acceptable ones are directional antennas pointing at each other, and a phased array or similar.
2. Names rule 1: Names are not description labels. Don't invent composite names. This is Tagging For Renderer. We don't need the likes of `name:en=Trash bin_BeijingTiananmenSquare_altitude1m`
3. The definition of short to long wave can be ambiguous. This is undesirable. Either use exact `frequency=`, or the likes of `telescope:spectrum=`; or look into how `communication:radio:*=` , `communication:amateur_radio:*=`, and ` `seamark:radio_station:*=` are formulated.

Please don't make features not even funded and tendered as `=construction`.

Sorry it's actually a case of forgetting to split the other sidewalks.

Hey this is not "spurious. They were a landmark, still visible from aerial imagery.

Then you should only upload after you have corrected. Not deleting all of them.

Can you please explain why you are deleting all of them?

Unfortunately Carto doesn't render `=bollard` line yet. As a side note, `=kerb` was removed too.
Another issue here is they are used to separate two directions besides other, meaning the `=cycleway` have to be splitted as well. Sometimes they are spaced widely that a bike can easily pass through, unlike the case on roads for cars. The gain in functionality and usability is more limited to roads. So I'm not going to do this yet.

How about doing some research first?
~800 https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/bollard=flexible elsewhere --- I suggested `installation=` to `cycle_barrier:installation` exactly to overcome this problem.
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/separation was `protection=` before. The `=not_required` prevents users from showing what's at the edge for their safety when there's nothing in parallel.
Dozen of https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=hazard=incline and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=hazard=slope variations. Curiously the proposal didn't handle this. Maybe because `hazard:bicycle=` is better, however this is already on a `=cycleway`. And you can complain there is only 2 `hazard:bicycle=incline`.
I discussed how to handle different `inlet=kerb_*=` in osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Inlets_proposal#What_about_kerb_grate_without_opening_in_kerb? by using `kerb:inlet=` where this situation illustrates the issue of handling a mix of them.
Two-sided kerbs and gurad rails were raised in osm.wiki/Talk:Key:kerb#"Double_sided"_kerbs and osm.wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dguard_rail#Tagging_guard_rails_with_two_"inner"_sides where `two_sided=yes` was said not common for the latter yet. `sides=` is already used in `advertising=`. It's possible to have 3, 4, and more sides.
And I don't have time to draw every `=fence` and `=bollard` out. It's the same as `kerb:*=`.
If you have a "more established" solution I'd love to know.

Can you explain what are you doing?

R33 already exists in relation/6928194 which should be modified. You duplicated the two.

`via=` is not for roads. It's not for all places it pass through either. It should be for places advertised only.

Please don't remove the address. It's still useful.

Please don't change `building:part=` for a single structure with different blocks.

Ok it seems that proposal is a mistake...

It's duplicating and quite a overkill to add each section as an `attraction=water_slide`. It should be tagged on the enclosing for the entire facility. Think it should use `water_slide=`, similar to `roller_coaster=track` inside an `attraction=roller_coaster`.

Please stop impersonating others and copying others changeset comments while doing the opposite.

It's added on way/1033838693 --- The convention in HK is to put on `landuse=residential`. I only put the `addr:housename=` on the `building=` again for good measures.

See way/163970357