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

hi. I don't know if you have the time, but edits by this user look associated to this other one: CindyPacey3377. maybe not, just my impression.

hi. I'm going to remove the name for this building. :-)

hola, welcome to OSM, thanks for your contributions. please remember to "square" the buildings you add (generally buildings have 90° corners).

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/16/f4/d9/b3/20190325-180532-largejpg.jpg

moreover, you and your team have been mapping and validating using quite obsolete aerial photography: in the changeset you mention Maxar. As far as I see, the buildings you confirmed in the changeset match Bing, and don't agree with Maxar.

hola HOT validator. there's something wrong going on here. your changeset comment states "adding buildings", and that you're in the "third pass validation" step.
yet, you're mostly editing natural cover information, contributed by local mappers.
have you checked with them? the community is small and at least Charlie Plett is easily found online, just look for him.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113358149