Hi, I have noticed you have changed the road classification of the lateral road of Via Cristoforo Columbo from unclassified to residential. It is not a residential part of this road because nobody is living there, it is a part between the arterial road and a parking, sports pitches and a university (unused entrance) and another parking.
I agree for the part north of via Padre Semeria being a residential street, but not for the southern part. I am using this road almost daily.

Hi, I noticed you added the Reginna torrent in the underground/tunnel part as width=5meters, can you recall where this information comes from?

frankly no. I did some countries I was aware of with small numbers of objects and then couldn't stop so I went on, but most of them weren't strictly mechanical edits because I have looked individually at all results. This was more time consuming then I originally wanted (because of web research etc.).
If you are going to fix these, please be aware that craft=sculptor isn't the correct tag most of the times (but tourism=artwork and artwork type = sculpture).
Cheers,
dd

Hi Brother Vincent, I have noticed you are using the building=monastery tag as the main tag for monasteries (together with community tags etc.). May I suggest to use amenity=monastery on the whole grounds (excluding fields, woods and meadows, but including gardens and other areas around the buildings).
E.g. relation/2189753
This doesn't mean to refrain from building=monastery, but the community tags would go on the amenity and not on the building, similarly to how we use amenity=school.
What do you think?

sorry for the noise, I take this back, as the highways (linear) still have their names it is probably not much damage (it could be an issue for pedestrian navigation if they route around the corners and there will be no name).

Hi Janjko, I have noticed that you remove name tags from highway objects when there is a place=square object around, please do not do this. There is no inheritance from outer way tags to the relation, and while in theory it would be possible to inherit from place objects, for the current state it basically breaks the stuff of a lot of people.

Hi, I just noticed you have moved the centre of Rome in this edit. Can you explain for what reason? There were good arguments for the former position, some years ago I have written about this in a diary post: @dieterdreist/diary/40727

Cheers,
dD

grazie per aver rimesso il duomo. Sarebbe ancora meglio ripristinare (revert) per non perdere lo storico (si fa per esempio con il plugin revert di josm)

Hi, it looks as if you added the junction roundabout tag to a lot of circular road crossings. How did you verify these are actually roundabouts?

I can’t recall, sorry

Si , conosco bene le ciclofficine, ci sono stato svariate volte e ho degli amici che le gestiscono. Vivo a Roma.

In general I agree that shop may not be the best solution, but the bike repair stations are a fundamentally different thing, they are some tools on a chain, publicly accessible at any time, typically. The ideal solution has yet to be proposed

Semiautomated because you did a search and replace on a series of features. If you want to do this (basically change the established way of tagging in an area), you should discuss it before with the local community. I have now seen you just started to edit in OSM, welcome :)

In case you are not aware, there is a regional mailing list talk-it-Lazio which would be suitable to discuss the issue.
The topic was also discussed recently on the international tagging mailing list, where you can find some reasoning:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047078.html

Hi malaerba, thank you for replying. I agree shop is suboptimal, we should develop a dedicated tag for this kind of feature. They are not bicycle repair stations because that's a different thing, see the description and picture here
amenity=bicycle_repair_station
They are not unattended

this is an semiautomatic undiscussed edit and should be reverted.

stimmt da war ein Fehler, aber im Namen, nicht in der Position. Bitte nicht leichtfertig Daten loeschen, lieber erstmal die Bearbeiter kontaktieren...

uebrigens, es gibt dort selbstverstaendlich Katakomben, daher der Name, nur sind die nicht oeffentlich zugaenglich.

Gruss,
Martin

Hi, I have noticed you changed the name of the park, what are your sources?

Hallo Kurt Waldhans,
Überlebenswichtig ist das natürlich nicht für mich, wenn es Dir Spaß macht beim Amt zu recherchieren dann würde mich das Ergebnis interessieren, aber wenn das eher eine Pflicht wäre dann lass es sein.

mit freundlichem Gruß,
Martin Koppenhöfer

welche "offiziellen Daten"? Davon gibt es oft viele, entscheidend ist, dass es die relevanten offiziellen Daten sind, d.h. aus dem Akt der Straßenbenennung (normalerweise Stadtratsbeschluss). Alles andere ist dann davon abgeschrieben und ggf. transportieren sich Fehler und Ungenauigkeiten so weiter.
Wo es schon um diese Straße geht, hier ist vermutlich ein track und kein footway oder path, oder?
way/24734950
Das ist doch vermutlich hier:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viersen_-_Alte_S%C3%BCchtelner_Landstra%C3%9Fe_01_ies.jpg
ggf. fehlt da jetzt auch der Name.

Ich bin prinzipiell bei Waldhans, wenn man den offiziellen Namen verifiziert hat, dann sollte bzw. kann er auch dann in official_name eingetragen werden, wenn er gleich ist wie der "name". Letzteres würde ich als OSM Namen sehen und nicht als offiziellen Namen, d.h. da kann es Abweichungen geben, insbesondere schreiben wir bei OSM Abkürzungen aus.
Entscheidend für den official name ist im Zweifel die Primärquelle, also nicht das Kataster oder irgendwelche offiziellen Straßenlisten, sondern der offizielle Akt der Benennung bzw. Namensänderung.