way/689887109/history
Currently, both the building, farmyard and meadow are named "Blegen".
Wouldn't it be better to restrict it to the meadow, since that's where the *bleaching* took place?

Du fandt et skråfoto over fyrene på Tærø, men du fik vist ikke rettet dem. Og jeg kan kun se forfyret på skråfoto.

Ikke efter bogen, nej, men se noten for den nordlige side. Jeg ved ikke engang nok, til at kunne sige, om kablet stadig ligger der.
Ret det til som du ønsker, eller slet linjen.

I agree. Feel free to change them to "Locality", or some other feature type instead.

If you do, please keep the other tags (tents=no; fee=yes; etc.) intact, in case someone changes their types again.
(And while you're at it, consider moving the "Camp Ruaha" node somewhat to the northwest. All 15 cabins north of Elefantsletten are part of it.)

Note that "Camp Masai Mara" is represented by two nodes; one north of "Savannen" (2+4+3 cabins), and one on the south side (8 cabins).

Tak skal du have for linket.
Det ser dog ud til, at det skal hedde:

power=tower
line_management=transition
location:transition=yes

Det har jeg i hvert fald rettet det til.

De skulle vel ikke have et kort over undervandskabler? Jeg kan ikke finde et på "kortoverblik.dk", og det virker syndt for relationen, at den mangler det kabel.
relation/5465142/history

Tak skal du have.

way/1225217556
Den midterste del af dette stykke bruges i øjeblikket som et almindeligt spor til skovbrug. Må jeg fjerne den midterste del, så det ikke overlapper med skovsporet?

Doesn't seem to be the problem in this instance. I have changed it.
But yeah, a river is an abstract concept, one can be part of another, or two rivers might even overlap partially...

As for the tunnel segments, I've realized that the optimal way to make Waterways is to create one river Line object, name it and make it a new relation, and then expand it by rightclicking and using the Continue and/or Split functions. That way, each new Line automatically given the name and relation memberships of the original object.
A Waterway relation is much easier to deal with than 3 Lines, and a Multipolygon relation is handier than an equivalent decagon (10-sided) Area.

(I am going through most of the named waterways I can find on Zealand and putting them into Relations. When this is done, maybe the administrators can use this to study how Waterways work, somehow.)

And by the way, I think you are supposed to make the tunnel segments part of the Waterway too. I have done so for the segments north of Spangå.

According to the SDFI maps, only the part north of *Spangå* is called "Hove Å", and the part south of it is called "Vasbø Å".
Should I change it, or are you sure about the naming?

node/2660175840
I have changed Nældevads Å, such that it runs from the west and not from the south.

Jeg har vendt et antal af dine vandveje, der vendte i mærkelige retninger.

Jep, men ikke ideelt. Delt i tre changesets ville de f.eks. ikke besværre fynboerne.

Jeg er heller ikke særlig god til at holde dem kompakte, og visse datakilder er for besværlige til det.
Og vigtigere er det heller ikke. 🙂‍↕️

PS: God jul og godt nytår!🎄🎆

Hvis en sti slettes, vil den før eller senere blive "genopdaget", genbrugt og genoptegnet. Potentielt af den samme bruger, sågar.

Hvis du istedet markerer den med *access=private*, så kan man se at den ikke må bruges. (Jeg ved dog ikke hvor synligt det fremgår på kortene...)

Det kan også tænkes, at skiltningen inde i skoven er utilstrækkelig.

You made edits to Kolding, Nybøl and København in the same changeset...

I don't know what data you are dealing with, but it is generally best to keep changesets more compact, so they don't take up too much space on the history page.

osm.org/history

And he did it in India while editing Alaska...

OSM could use some feature to detect and split changesets covering extreme distances.

I've added somewhat precise fences all the way around Kulsbjerg Øvelsesplads. I feel like replacing the Area with a Multipolygon Relation.
Is there any other first-hand information you feel is missing from it?

According to
osm.wiki/Relation:waterway#Members
only water leaving the river and returning to it should be given the side_stream role.

And this tributary hadn't been given the side_stream role:
way/411049009/history

If you want to undo my edits, here is the changeset:
changeset/160256322

Thank you. 🙂
(And good to know that a changeset can be used directly to contact its editor.)

Can anybody see this comment?

I'm assuming it's a mistake that Lollikebæk has been set to flow northwards, and has changed it.