Yes, species=*, species:wikidata=* and species:wikipedia=* are the proper tags.

>> Is there a proper way to link a commons image to each individual element to depict what it looks like without taking an individual photo of each element that are nearly identical?

If an image of that species exist on commons, is already linked to the wikidata entry somehow, so linking the wikidata entry with species:wikidata is enough if someone wants to see what a species looks like. As a matter of fact, even species:wikipedia=*/wikipedia=* are redundact if species:wikidata=*/wikidata=* are tagged, since they are also connected to the relative wikipedia pages in every language.

Ciao Sergio P,

c'é un problema con il valore wikimedia commons. La sintassi da seguire é "wikimedia_commons=File:xyz.jpg" ad esempio
qua hai aggiunto "=Tabelle segnavia LDP 260-03", manca il prefisso (File: o Category:) e l'estensione del file (.jpg, .JPG, .png ecc.). Riesci a sistemare?

Hi CleverCamel,

node/12002605741/history

please notice that wikimedia_commons=* has to be used for images or categories depicting the specific element, in this case the linked category is the one for the entire species, not this specific shrub. Also the tag has a syntax to be follow, such as "Category:xyz" instead of "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:xyz"

Same for wikidata/wikipedia, you linked the wikidata/wikipedia page for the generic species, not for this specific shrub.

Same for image=*, the linked image has to depict the specific element. In this case you added the same picture to 4 different shrubs, this can't be correct.

Thanks and good mapping

relation/17647703

Hi Fresno, could you take a look at this relation? natural=tree should be a node

also is weird for an element to be both natural=* and man_made=* at the same time

also layer=1, 2 seems an error to me

thanks and good mapping

Or to better say, they were correct for the time (2 years ago), now the schema has been updated, but I think it would be better to update it (changing the tags with parking:left=no and parking:right=separate) than to delete it, would that be okay with you?

Hi Badojo,

way/195748331/history

I don't understand how did you fix the parking tags here, they seemed correct to me. Could you explain?

Ciao Armando,

https://osmcha.org/changesets/152451609

come puoi vedere dal link, il farmland creato deriva dall'aver dimezzato di circa la metà un poligono già esistente. Quindi in realtà non ho creato un nuovo grande poligono ex novo, ma dimezzato un grandissimo poligono già esistente, tra l'altro escludendo alcuni edifici, aree residenziali e strade nel mentre.

I fixed it now, thanks: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/97421192

Hi MarioKrammer,

way/97421192/

what's the meaning of ref:nid? The documented use is for heritage monuments in Poland, but this element is on Germany.

Hi donovaly, I saw you are adding lot of wikipedia links in Tirana. If it's not a big problem could you adapt your workflow to add the values without underscores? From the wiki: "Use the human readable title of the article, for example 'en:St Paul's Cathedral' rather than the version with underscores"

Thanks and good mapping

Hi Erick,

"the DWG has, numerous times, asked you to apply useful changeset comments when making edits to OSM."

Perché sulle rotonde é implicito e ridondante.

Hi StopConsuming_StartProducing, is "(the original one)" really part of the name?

yes what? can the tag second_hand be deleted?

Ciao Bagigio,

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/6031620085
eliminando questo POI hai cancellato anche il civico 32, che ora non risulta piú nel database. Presumo esista ancora? In casi del genere andrebbero cancellati solo i tag inerenti all'attivitá (amenity e name in questo caso)

@Accipiglio per conoscere il significato di un tag consulta la wiki: osm.wiki/IT:Tag:leisure%3Dpark
"Un parco è un'area aperta usata per scopi ricreativi", questo non é chiaramente il caso

inoltre cosa significa "the local Municipality considers it as 'green'"?

Hi based_kronberger, thanks for your contributions!

I noticed a couple things:
way/175334415
here you did add the address to the building outline, but it was already present in the proper building relation: relation/2342359

way/1102636555
same here, you added the address to the outer way instead that to the relation, this edit also created a duplicated building

way/369730250
here you duplicated the address to a building:part. You also added the tag building, but an element can't be a part of a building and a building at the same time

way/175108137
here you changed addr:street from "Sheshi Skënderbej" to "Rruga Sheshi Skenderbej", but there's no element with such name in the database as far as I know
you also changed building=office to building=yes. Usually a value should changed from a generic one to a more specific one, not the opposite.

Hi divaddivag,

why did you add back a link to a non-existing image: node/1494437697/history ?

"This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference."

This changeset has been reverted here: changeset/152109463

Si puó rimuovere il nome anche da: way/832329838
"stagno / kal"?