Hi ferog_v thank you for your contributions. It seems that after your edit this boundary: relation/6418301#map=15/21.04749/-89.55804 is now broken. I can see that you have deleted lower part of a relation and it now has split ends and as a result boundary is broken. I wanted to check if this is maybe done by mistake or you have some local knowledge that boundary situation here has changed?
Thank you

Hello! Thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. However, with this recent edit, it seems that the natural=coastline tag has been removed from some parts, and as a result this caused issues with coastlines tag not being connected as a whole. It would probably be best not to delete the natural=coastline tag. Instead, you might want to add the natural=wetland tag as a separate way or as a multipolygon. This way, both natural features can coexist without any rendering and broken ways problems. Thanks again for your work, and happy mapping!

It should work. There is no way for the boundary to be locked down.

Thank you for reply. You can use the split option. After selecting the boundary way, click on the node that should be a separating point, and click P button on your keyboard. You can find more details here: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/SplitWay

Dear DrDisaster
Thank you for your recent contributions to the Ohio region in OpenStreetMap. We've noticed that you've been adjusting and adding boundaries. Your dedication to improving the map is greatly appreciated. However we have noticed that this boundary isn't finished: Однос: ‪Geneva Township‬ (‪17951626‬) | OpenStreetMap There i a north part of boundary near the coastline that needs to be drawn as it can be seen on wiki data here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Township,_Ashtabula_County,_Ohio
We wanted to check if you can close this boundary so that relation isn't broken? Open Street Map's relation structures can be complex, and it’s easy to overlook how changes to one element might affect others. If you're experiencing any difficulties or have any questions about how relations function within OSM, please don't hesitate to reach out to us. We would be more than happy to assist in resolving any issues or provide guidance where needed. Your continued contributions are invaluable to the community and ensuring that all elements work seamlessly together is crucial for maintaining the quality of our shared map.
Thank you

Hello JJIglesias, thank you for your edit and for pointing this out.
Happy mapping

Hello kapazao, thank you for pointing this out.
Regards

Hola Daniel, gracias por corregir esto.

Hello Andy. The word "Fontanelle" is not triggering our internal profanity check tool and the change looked legit. Thank you for commenting on this, we have noted this example and will pass the offending name to the profanity tool team to update the lookup datasets.

This change was proposed by one of our users. Our editorial team reviewed the change carefully and used various methods to verify its quality and accuracy. These include:
Using specialized software that can automatically detect and correct errors (some of which are based on artificial intelligence).
Leveraging the local expertise and experience of our editors who are familiar with the topics and regions they cover.
Consulting reliable and credible sources of information that are publicly available.

After completing the validation process, our editorial team did not find anything suspicious or presense of the logical issues in the changeset and decided to publish it for everyone to see.

Hello. Thank you for pointing this out.

Hi Diógenes de Sinope thank you for your question. Can't say for sure whether this is private or commercial property.

Hello, and thank you for getting in touch. Indeed house was drawn over a road, and even though the building was aligned with the Bing imagery it doesn't align with the road geometry that was drawn over some other imagery and the building does cross the road. Thank you for pointing this out, changeset is reverted. Happy mapping.

Hello InsertUser, and thank you for your comment. This does seem like a foundation for the future building and yes, it is currently not visible on the satellite images, but we are working on suggestions from Map builder users who most likely know the local situation that is not yet visible on any imagery.

Hello. I will have to go through all the edits related to these cases, check them at the street level again, and will do revert to the ones I am not sure of.

Hello mego_map , thank you for getting in touch and pointing this out. After checking, I agree that these streets are serviceable. The roads are fixed. Thank you and happy mapping.
Miroslav

Hello Sylvain M, thank you for pointing this out, yes, this was a typo. It is corrected now. Happy mapping.

ivanbranco wrote: "I see problems with the automated edit but not with content of it, what's the meaning of leaving building:part=no with building=yes? Isn't it implied?"

Answer: It is definitely not implied. The reason why this tag building:part=no NEEDs to be added with the building=yes is for the object actually to be rendered like here: https://osmbuildings.org/?lat=43.85171&lon=19.84253&zoom=16.0&tilt=30 and here: https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=43.8533517&lon=19.8545375&zoom=17
All building:part=yes tags must be within an outline of a tag building=yes & building:part=no together with eachother because this second tag building:part=no is the one that defines the hall structure of a building and allows it to render because it excludes outline of a building as a part of a building. So when this tag was removed the hall building loose its value and couldn't render anymore on any map. So it is a good thing that this changeset was reverted in order to bring back good render.
Miroslav

Hello Marcos, thank you for reaching out to us. Could you be a bit more specific and tell us what is actual typo mistake?

Thank you for the valid suggestion which we accepted and applied. Happy mapping.
Miroslav