again same question as changeset/146783763 why did you remove those tracks, they are on the latest imagery so that untill we get newer imagery or you physically survey the area from within yourself (or someone else does that) you cant just remove those. why did you remove them, it would be impossible to see all of those from any of the roads since the area is covered in pine rockland impeding views into the area. you either physically went into the area and saw with your own eyes that these had been removed or those edits should be reverted since there is no way you could have figured out whether or not they still exist without a thorough survey and if I remember that land is owned by Miami Dade so private citizens wouldn't be allowed inside.

If you dont respond quickly I will have to assume you didn't survey this as mentioned above and just removed them based on small amounts of information again as mentioned above and in the linked commit message, and revert this myself since has at this point become a pattern of yours. so please respond or fix in a timely manner, I have left you so many comments over the last few months with questions over commits.

I do remember that they changed the bus routes a bit around November 13 2023, and admittedly the mapping of bus routes I’m OSM is one of the areas I don’t have that much experience or knowledge on mapping so I don’t know how to figure out what the correct new alignments of bus routes are now. I also don’t have the time an money to take every rout and using a gps tracker app on my phone figure it out. I am planning to message drynwk about it since he seems to know more than me, I just haven’t gotten to that yet though I plan to at some point in the next week.

As a note Miami dades data can be a bit out of date at times (especially on the open data hub) so it may take them some time to get the new bus route up.

Also, what do you mean by “unlisted bus stops”?

Why did you tag 107 as tertiary link, links are only supposed to be used between two roads like a highway exit ramp. Its seems like that way should be residential to me but if you fell it’s tertiary then tag as that, its definitely not a link.

Please respond

Why did you remove the loading docks?

This change set comment doesn’t really tell you anything about what was done in this commit. Next time please try to better describe what was done in the change set comment. For more information see
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Next time please leave a change set comment explaining what you did in the commit and why, for more details see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Also why does the “Bunnies Encounter” have species:wikipedia=en:Liger tagging on it?

Oh, sorry I thought that you were the one adding this feature, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Happy mapping

Question, the commit message is a bit confusing, does “angepasst” mean that this once existed at this location or not because if this doesn’t exist any more I don’t think it should be added, maybe see https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ if you want to map historical features.

Can you please respond

What’s the source for this

is it 1 or 2 atm's

please respond

please respond

please respond

please respond

what is the source for this commit??

because by a cursory glance at the various features added I have a feeling that at least part of this commit is additions that do not exist in reality. for example this commit adds English named hot5els/guest houses in the middle of Africa, while its possible that such a thing exists I doubt that it is real. this also adds a dog park that when you look at the default imagery layer for the area (somewhere in Nebraska) seems to be in the middle of a marsh or swamp of some sort, so unless some construction has happened in the area since the imagery updated (I dont know when it last updated) that along with the fact that the feature is called doggy park which doesn't seem like a name for a park (from my experience in the US they usually are named after a person, movement etc. and not just their purpose alone).

typo:
tagging not raging

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you,
I think highway=pedestrian is better tagging since these features represent the areas of sidewalks so they are pedestrian areas and if one were to add a new one in iD (or any other editor using the iD tagging schema) would add a new pedestrian area using the tags of area=yes and highway=pedestrian so that tag should stay. That’s why I didn’t change/remove the area:highway=pedestrian since the area*=* is technically correct so that’s why I feel it would be optimal to keep the tagging before this change.
Happy mapping