many of the buildings were tagged as "area = yes" they should have been tagged "building = yes".

I have fixed this

Hi
The boundaries were based on imagery, as such it is not alsways possible to be precise in determining where the actual change occurs between forestry area and a different landuse type.

However I had three intentions with this changeset.

The first was to remove the municipal boundaries from the multipolygon for the forest landuse. The forest extends across municipal boundaries, and you can see I have now extended it into Capoocan, before this changeset the forset was shown to stop at the Capoocan / Carigara boundary.

The second intention was to split the foreseted area into at least two multipolygons. Prior to this changeset the multipolygon covered a large area (particularly in a north / south extent), and I felt it was more manageable as two multipolygons.

The third intention was to try and be more precise in the definition of the forest / other landuse boundary.

This was a large edit, with many changes in the changeset. I closed this changeset with the intention of revising some of the ways in the multipolygon at a later date, in particular I expect that the forested area mapped in OSM will "move" south past the Carigara / Ormoc boundary

please feel free to add a fixme if you so wish

It's left there so that someone with greater local knowledge than myself can tag this way appropriately, possibly as part of a waterway = riverbank relation.

The only tag which I would add would be a note that this was was part of the original PGS coastline import. However, since this information can already be obtained from this ways history, I see no point in adding such a tag.

glad to be of help

Alan. I've merged what I can, and deleted those which didn't represent anything. Whilst doing this I've also tidied up some of the imported landuse multiploygons.

A lot of these ways do represent featues such as islands, which Is why I left them. I'll try and merge this into the exisiting data

changeset comment should have read "update coastline from imagery"

You are deleting the tag "natural = coastline" from many ways. Please do not do this.

Thanks, I only noticed the problem with the lastest JOSM recently. To be honest I'm surprised the validator didnt pick it up. Im being mre careful now.

what was your source for way/521544800 as it does not show on any imagery?

As you can see from my changeset comment the edit I made was purely on the ref tagging.

It would need a survey to see if cycling is actually permitted. Even if it were I don't believe this would change the designation tag, since this tag relates to the PROW designation.

This must have been a typing error, and I meant to change the relation to "water" not "wood".
Thank you for fixing it

since you also sent me a msg via the msging system I replied toyou there.

that msg stated "your tagging of landuse = farmland was on small parcels of land was incorrect. Landuse should be on the wider area.

Also as I pointed out in my earlier email, your changes were not in accordance with discussions on the Philippine mailing list.

I wasn't aware of the recent usage if the tag field=yes to which you drew my attention field=* because a search on the wiki for field does not show this page

I have therefore changed all my tags of field=* to field_boundary=* "

Source should have been Mapbox Satellite imagery

But the Bing imagery does seem to show two parallel footways, at least at the part of Regent Street north of Hartley Road

no, I've not

I had considered that the footpath network adjacent to regent street was adequate to provide foot routing, but on reflection that nay not be the case, so I have removed the noexit tag and added a short section of footway

I have now fixed it