For paths and terrain in Danish forests, try using the SDFI Terrain Shadow Map, which is available in the iD (in-browser) editor. It essentially lets you see the forest without the trees.

node/7053190718

Der ser ikke ud til at være noget byskilt, bortset fra det røde skilt nordøst for togovergangen, hvis dét altså tæller som et byskilt.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1213911789039089&focus=photo&lat=54.678146840965326&lng=11.89878852295783&z=18.480623101734352&x=0.49429417469868037&y=0.4984418893851777&zoom=0

Tak skal du have! Den vil jeg bruge.

way/1069486985

man_made=embankment

That is not how man_made=embankment is used. It should be placed at the *edge* of an embankment, (like a natural=cliff or a barrier=retaining_wall). But I don't know what to use instead.

I could draw a man_made=embankment all the way around it, or I could place a barrier=wall with material=soil. What do you think?

Vandreruter implementeres gerne på OSM ved brug af "Relationer".
osm.wiki/Relation:route

Jeg skal gerne implementere den, hvis du ikke er bekendt med OSM-Relation, men kunne du fortælle mig:
Går stien *med* eller *mod* uret?

Bortset fra, at natural=hill ikke vises på nogen kort, og ifølge dets eget wiki-side ikke er særligt veldefineret.

Jeg vil foreslå at markere punkt-bakker med natural=peak (og aflange bakker med natural=ridge), og opfinde et ekstra tag, såsom "peak=hill", til at beskrive hvad slags top, der er tale om. Da vil bakkerne være synlige for alle, og avancerede brugere og apps vil kunne se forskel mellem bjergtoppe og bakketoppe.

Der står desuden, at "hill" kan bruges som Områder, men hvad skal "ele" betyde i det tilfælde? Elevationen for toppen eller for basen? Og et hill-Område kunne stadig bruge et natural=peak inde i sig til at markere toppen af bakken.

natural=peak?uselang=en

natural=peak behøver ikke at være et bjerg.

way/1346232136/history#map=19/54.999272/12.133536
Jeg har netop tilføjet de hække og hegn, der støder op til området her, og jeg tænkte, om man skulle gøre hele det grønne område til én Multipolygon. Er det okay med dig?

Jeg tænker desuden, at landuse=grass er mere beskrivende for området end leisure=park eller natural=grassland.

Jeg har gjort det samme i Stensved, hvis du er i tvivl om, hvad jeg mener:
relation/18645605#map=18/54.999560/12.025236

way/691239567
Are you sure about this being farmyard "Solvang"? Currently, it is merely a small park and a building used to support the nearby church and graveyard.

"Vandparken" stammer fra:
changeset/35008335

Gad vide, hvorfor den blev markeret dér. Måske tog vidste man ikke, hvad "water_park" betyder?

Er du sikker på, at det er *marken*, og ikke *bakken*, der hedder Langebjerg?

Oh, ok.

Feel free to tag it so.

Note that it isn't just *made* from rock, though. It *is* a large un-modified stone. These are often used to block car access around these parts. Ideally barrier=rock should be used, but I don't think that is supported.

No problem at all.

Sorry. I tried to type "desc" and didn't check if auto-fill read it as "description".

The block is a large rock, but the iD editor doesn't like that being used as a barrier.

I've fixed it now.

Oh, by the way, what do you think about the actual Nazca *lines* being labelled as "geoglyphs" despite each just being a straight line? I find it annoying, but I sure don't know how they *should* be tagged, as they're more or less just ridges dug in sand.

I don't believe I added any glyph, I think I just consolidated the glyphs already there into a smaller number of relations, but I'll take your word for it.

I find it messy to have every single line count as its own geoglyph. Just look at this glyph:
relation/18699860
It used to be counted as 96 geoglyphs, one for each of its lines.

The paths going through buildings should have their end points placed on the very edges of the buildings, rather than just outside (or inside) of them.
I've fixed it and added "covered=partial".
changeset/163678157

You know, you could always *tell me* when you revert my changes, so I learn what I did wrong, and so I don't just repeat it.

Hmm... Der kan man se...