Obrigado,
Nem sabia que lá tinham ficado. O Validator do JOSM não detetou... (?)
Já corrigido.
RB

Ups...
Obrigado!👋

De nada.
Bons mapeamentos.
RB

Olá,
Estive hoje a rever e a inserir as várias "Árvores do Ano". Como utilizo sempre taxon, quando sou eu a inserir as árvores pela 1ª vez, devo ter pensado que tinha inserido esta também. Vou já repor.
RB

Olá,

Obrigado pelo apuramento da classificação do local.

Devo confessar que desconhecia "amenity=trade_school" (Escola Profissional/Vocacional) assim como "training=*". Sempre a aprender...

Cumprimentos,
RB

Thank you.

PPS.

"geological: site" it's a a typo mistake.

Hi,
A Geosite (also Geoheritage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoheritage) are places of geological significance usually inside Geoparks (https://www.unesco.org/en/iggp/geoparks/about).

In Portugal there are 6 parks (https://www.visitportugal.com/en/node/426541) comprising several geosite(s).

These are places selected for their high geological relevance, that's why they all have the geological=* tag (except when they are viewpoints from where geological features, geosite, can be observed on the horizon).

On the ground they are used to attract tourism and educate visitors.

At the moment I'm not certain that this is the best tag to classify an officially designate geosite. But it will have to do for the meantime.

If you have ideias and want to contribute to a better tagging, please do.

RB

PS. C.f. "In the north, in Arouca Geopark you can discover 41 geosites with unique characteristics, of which the Pedras Parideiras de Castanheira (Castanheira’s Breeding Stones) or the Trilobites Gigantes de Canelas (Canelas' Giant Trilobites) stand out..." in https://www.visitportugal.com/en/node/426541

Olá,

Concordo com o que dizes. "attraction" é usado no OSM na perspetiva da linguagem inglesa: attraction, amusement park, ride, etc.
Vou alterar...

Obrigado pela ajuda.
RB

Dear kapazao,
Thank you for your words.
I've already been adding the details inside the mentioned poligonal areas.
RB

Dear kapazao,
Thank you for your words.
I've already been adding the details inside the mentioned poligonal areas.
RB

Obrigado.

The ways were undelete on 2023-12-31

The way was undelete on 2023-12-31

Yes, it can be restored.
I just need a few days because I'm absent from home because of the festivities.
Is this Ok?

Hi Jimiiee,

It was drew without any consideration for the enormous previously existent details at this area. It collided with all the parks and green areas that exists. The residential area was/is already depicted by the footprint of all the existing buildings. The removed residential area had no name and a tag "level=-1" (?!?).

To see a self-explanatory (and useful) feature area at the same place place see: relation/6528455

RB

Hi Jimiiee,

It was drew without any consideration for the enormous previously existent details at this area. It collided with all the parks and green areas that exists. The residential area was/is already depicted by the footprint of all the existing buildings. The removed residential area had no name and a tag "level=-1" (?!?).

To see a self-explanatory (and useful) feature area at the same place place see: relation/6528455

RB

Hi,

Yes, I believe so.

Cf: http://www.monumentos.gov.pt/Site/APP_PagesUser/SIPA.aspx?id=7859.

Extract translated with Google Translator:

..."Transport architecture, 19th century. Masonry bridge that follows construction models created during Roman times and which lasted without significant changes until the 19th century. 19, when the dissemination of iron architecture introduced new formal possibilities. Despite being ruined, it maintains its constructive and formal characteristics. The geometric regularity of the pillars and carvings stands out, contrasting with the masonry device and the brick covering of the carvings."...

RB

Olá
Parece-me tudo bem.

Hello,

Thank you for your input.
I already revert this changeset.