please help reviewers by describing your intentions when contributing.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

por favor ayudenos revisar, describiendo las intenciones.
osm.wiki/ES:Good_changeset_comments

hola Porfirio! local names, don't delete them, try to keep that information, like under "species:es". :-)

I don't understand what is going on here … I'm looking at node/9773097146, initially identified as species=Tuyas orientales (spelling mistake for Thuya orientalis, a non accepted synonym of Platycladus orientalis) and proper individual name "Ciprés".
porfiriopaiz tried to help, correcting the scientific name to the proper accepted binomial, and removing the proper name.
the original editor "corrected", removing the correction, and setting 'species' to 'cipres'.
now it becomes even more curious, because what is porfiriopaiz doing, translating again to a different species?

can the initial mapper please get in contact? the goal is a better map, and if you have access to first hand information, we are only trying to help you state what you mean so that we understand it.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121861815

natural=tree

species:es

a safer move would be to move the vernacular name to its key, instead of keeping the 'species' key and fixing (guessing) the name.
even better if these editors would reply.

Porfirio, be careful when translating vernacular names to scientific: "Almendra" says close to nothing here in Latin America. it could be the European Prunus ducis as you say, but much more probable it's a Terminalia catappa.

hé, ça que vous avais fait ici, c'est pire que d'ajouter de nouvelles informations en utilisant un mauvais format : ici, vous avez supprimé des informations correctement formatées, en les remplaçant par des déchets : espèces scientifiques par nom vernaculaire dans la balise "species".
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121861815

'name' means "proper name", which is preferably something unique. Now imagine a classroom, where the teacher calls all boys "Boy" and all girls "Girl". This is precisely what you are doing with these "Teca" and "Palma real". This information goes into the 'species' field, and must be expressed as Linnaean binomial.

it's established botanic norm, to give Genus epithet with Capital initial, species epithet in lower case. The Upper Case rule goes for all epithets of ranks down to Section, while epithets at rank below section go in lower letter.

apart from "it looks better", casing is relevant for many search engines.

hola. este parece el primer conjunto de cambios de una gran cantidad de datos añadidos a OSM de seguro interés, pero en forma errada. es usted el responsable del proyecto?
la organización Kaart intentó una mejora (changeset/118205245) sin embargo sería útil entenderse con vuestro equipo.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1j1q

hi. did your team attempt contact with the authors of this information? you fixed 1367, there's still 5046 to go, and their team still adds (few) nodes as natural=wood. see changeset:119047445.

hola. quieren ayuda? han llenado el lugar de datos que seguramente tienen relevancia y sentido, pero la forma como lo hicieron no explica de qué se trata.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1j1q

reverted in changeset/121925989, for copyright infringement.

hola, como ya le comentaron en su segunda contribución a OSM, "natural=wood" es para áreas con bosques (wood). si acá están describiendo árboles, la etiqueta es "natural=tree". también vuestro uso de la etiqueta "name" está mal. acuérdense que OSM es un proyecto global y colaborativo, y los errores, tarde o temprano, serán mejorados por otros maperos. si quieren asegurarse que esta información quede en la base de datos, será mejor comunicares con la comunidad, que les está ofreciendo apoyo para mejorar las ediciones.

hola. qué son estos datos? hay manera de mejorarlos? se trata de arbolado urbano? son números de accesión? y los "césped", qué son?

possibly: you zoomed far too much in, and have been mapping pixels of aerial photographies.

hi. welcome to OSM. please do consider looking for assistance to improve your mapping. shapes and sizes of objects you contributed as "building" are beyond imagination. one building is a maze with 42 corners, several are smaller than 2m², think of 4'×5'. please ask for assistance with the group for which you're contributing.

this is an example that I suggest you review critically:
way/1064158098

hi, and welcome to OSM. have you followed some tutorial? it would do good to your editing quality! just for example, you have produced four distinct "building=yes" for a single real-life object, possibly because you did not dare move an existing road.
Way: 1032368266
Way: 1032368267
Way: 1032368268
Way: 1032368269

hi. you aren't at the first changeset in OSM … yet … what is it that you've been mapping? 17 of these "buildings" are less than 5m². 9 less than 3m². (in "imperial" units, that's respectively 54 and 32 square feet).

I would have delimited the area and asked for assistance on how to tag it, or left it to local OSM users.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/6397181