Hi there, just curious what the basis is for the change to highway=primary from Seville to National Highway 40? These roads don't appear to be part of the National Highway system, so secondary seems to have been the correct category prior to this changeset. Thanks in advance for the info!

No he recibido respuesta con respecto al borrado. En adicion a las relaciones antes descritas, veo que adicionalmente se borraron en este changeset relaciones de administrative boundaries, todo sin comentrario explicando la razon para el borrado. Le pido de nuevo que revierta el borrado de las relaciones en este changeset. De nuevo gracias.

I've removed the duplicate roads. Make sure to check for existing features when uploading tracks :) Thanks & happy mapping!

Me refiero a la relaciónode/5128404 que corresponde a la Variante de Tuluá (25 VL E), la cual fue borrada en este changeset. También se borraron muchos de las vías de la relaciónode/4864513 entre Buga y Andalucía, que corresponden al trayecto 2503 de la Ruta Nacional 25. Por favor revierta el borrado de la relaciónode/5128404 y reponga los trayectos faltantes de la relaciónode/4864513. Gracias

Cordial saludo. Me pregunto la razón para haber borrado la relación de la Variante de Tuluá (25 VL E) en este changeset al igual que la eliminación de la mayoría de los segmentos del tramo 25-05 de la Ruta Nacional 25 en varios de sus changesets (sin comentarios, a propósito) del 21 y 22 de julio? Gracias de antemano por su respuesta

I've undeleted the relations in changesets 50521875 & 50521935.

Cordial saludo y gracias por su contribución. Esta carretera (way/495336944) ya habia sido añadida por usted mismo como way/444180948. Por favor borre el duplicado y asegúrese de haber descargado el area de trabajo en JOSM antes de subir tracks. Gracias.

Cordial saludo. Quisiera saber la razon para haber borrado las relaciones correspondientes a la Ruta Nacional 40? Si fue por error, por favor revierta el borrado de ambas relaciones borradas.

Hi, just curious what the basis or source was for downgrading the priority of all these roads? They are part of the national highway system and connect towns with each other and a major trunk road. I've upgraded them to tertiary for now pending your response. If there is a strong argument against primary, secondary would be a more fitting prority imo. Thanks in advance.

Hi there, thanks for your contribution. Are you sure this road exists in reality? Was this an on-the-ground observation? Thanks

Hi, please double check your updates to this area. there are duplicate overlapping ways (e.g. 45397393 and 479917166). You also seem to have created intersections to a river and an administrative boundary. Please check that this is desired. Thanks in advnace!

Hi there, could you please review your changes in this area? The roads you added already existed and now they are all overlapping existing feature (e.g. way/126173422). Thanks in advance.

Hi, I'm forced to revert your addition of leisure=park yet again. I've left numerous comments on your changesets with no response from your part. This is a community effort which requires active communication with other mappers. The areas you continue to mark as park as not parks under the definition of a park in OSM. These areas are already covered by natural reserve features, and are therefore duplicates (see osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element). Thus, I can only imagine you are adding the park tag in an attempt to have the renderer display a green color for these areas. This is discouraged in OSM (see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer). If you continue to revert my changes I will no choice than to report the dispute. Thanks in advance for your attention.

I'm reverting leisure=park to the feature south of CR 92 (way/497194410) as mapping for the renderer. No such park exists

I've reverted your change to leisure=park on Picayune Strand State Forest. I'd appreciate it if you would respond to the comments I've made on your changesets regarding mapping for the renderer. Communication is a central part of this community endeavor. Thanks.

Hi Max, thanks for the fix! I probably relied on the JOSM tool to create the multipolygon but forgot to verify the results. Cheers! :-)

I'm reverting the leisure=park tag for relation/7233208 as no such park exists. Since there's been no response in the discussion of changeset/48850559, I can only assume this to be a case of mapping for the renderer. See leisure=park for information about the park tag, and osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Park feature: way/494915788. Additional "parks" in question: ways 495211148, 495528218, 495215332, 495209488, 495209205, 495210617, 495531727, 495531725, 495217734

Hi there, regarding the Keewaydin Island Preserve "parK" which was added in this changeset, I'm curious to find out what the source for it is (your changeset didn't include a source)? It's not listed in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Google only has 1 hit for the name (and it's nothing official). As far as I can see, the boundaries would seem to coincide with the Rockery Bay Reserve, so could this be a duplicate and rather should be listed as an alternative name? Thanks in advance for any information to verify this. PS: Even if it does indeed exist as an entity, leisure=nature_reserve is probably a better tag for this than leisure=park

For cross-referencing, the changesets for the removal of the leisure=park tag are 48646492, 48646535, and 48646662