Hi, I have seen that you are adding footway=sidewalk tags to (virtual) footway crossing ways (the ways that connect sidewalks at crossings). Please use footway=crossing for these footways (together with highway=footway). Thank you.

OK, thank you, I have removed it now.
Have fun mapping!

Hi rusefkuma, can you recall why you added this obelisk and how it did look like? Maybe it was just a confusion and is refering to the monumental Lateran Obelisk in the centre of St. Peter's square? In this case I suggest to remove this object. Please reply, if you do not reply I will remove the thing in the next days. Thank you.

The reason why I was asking is that I do not believe there is an obelisk there, for sure there isn't an ancient monumental obelisk there (maybe a modern small version), but from looking at the tags there is eventually something like a memorial (plate) with an inscription that refers to an obelisk. AFAIK this part of the vatican isn't open to the public, so likely the position is just wrong and the thing is referring to the Lateran Obelisk in the centre of St. Peter's square.

Can you describe from where you copied the inscription text? I will probably delete this obelisk duplicate at the wrong position, but would try to save useful tags by transferring them to the correct object, if they can be confirmed.

I did not check "your edits" of course, I just noticed you have added wikidata tags to a supposed phantom obelisk, where the actual obelisk is already mapped 200 meters to the east at its actual position. There is no point in doing "manual verification" of automatically adding wikidata tags, when there is no verification at all. I am not going to undo your edits, but I would ask you to actually verify what you add.

see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=794408

Hi rusefkuma, I have noticed you have added an new obelisk here which I am curious to find out more about. Did you take a picture? I have not heard about it yet. Thank you,
Martin

Hi Pizzaiolo, I have noticed you have confirmed the phantom obelisk here. Can you please explain what your edit refers to? At first glance it seems someone was adding wikidata tags without any verification to phantom objects which really are already mapped at their actual location.

Hi, you wrote you had performed a survey to map this. Can you please tell me more? It does not occur to me that there is an obelisk at this spot, even less that there are names in all those languages. Seems like there is really nothing there.

Thank you for fixing the error you had introduced at the pyramid. From looking at the historical_objects page in the wiki that you linked, I did not read it as if site relations were ok for city walls, rather the "type=collection" type seems appropriate, although the page also clearly states that this will result in completely misleading rendering in their map ("The corresponding icon will be displayed in the centre of gravity of the member coordinates") as it will place a marker in the centre of the city, for a feature that is about its border. I agree that we are not tagging for a specific renderer, so this is not a reason to avoid it.

I did not revert any of this as I am not at the desk currently. This is neither a payback for any other discussion we have had. I just noticed that usage of the tag went down and that of social facility went up, I looked at random objects and saw it was you making this globally.

this is supposedly part of an undiscussed concealed automated edit which retagged several amenity=hospice

this is supposedly part of an undiscussed concealed automated edit which retagged several amenity=hospice

this is supposedly part of an undiscussed concealed automated edit which retagged several amenity=hospice

this is supposedly part of an undiscussed concealed automated edit which retagged several amenity=hospice

The Aurelian walls are not a "site", they are city walls, i.e. it is a generally linear feature, and the remains are interrupted, it is quite different to a "site". relation/10129640

in this changeset there were added "parts" of the citywalls that are not there any more, or that even have never been there (e.g. the pyramid of Cestius was itself part of the walls, there was not a wall going through it and there is not now). Also adjacent there was one the Aurelian walls but it has been torn down by Mussolini almost 100 years ago.
Can you please explain what the basis for these edits was? The above are only examples, I have not looked into everything yet.

Hi bvivi, as you have not replied and the people that contributed to the discussion on the Itailan mailing list proposed to remove the superfluous tags, I have now done so. Please be careful when adding stuff semiautomatically. The reason it is not done automatically is that we are relying on the local knowledge of the people who perform the edit. If you do not know the situation, do not change it. You had added a brand:en="Popular Bank of Sandrio", but "Sandrio" does not exist, the city is "Sondrio", nor is the translated brand in use anywhere in the world.

“Deine Änderungen sind nicht erwünscht” trifft es nicht, es wird diskutiert, ob das Sinn macht oder nicht, und es gibt gute Argumente dass es mindestens keine Verschlechterung ist. Freifliegende Nodes innerhalb von Gebäuden machen keinen Sinn und sind sicherlich nicht besser als Adresstags am Gebäudeumriss. Wie eingangs erwähnt wird im deutschen Forum hierzu gerade diskutiert, da kannst Du Dir selbst ein besseres Bild machen: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=69834