I just don't see this as a good way for migration to a new tagging schema. Breaking something which works for many uses of OSM data to have a better landuse in the future.

It's not wrong to add some new tags to better describe a feature, but I believe that it's wrong to break something working for an unconfirmed proposal. The sad reality natural=wood is NOT a landuse de facto (even more sadly landuse=forest isn't). Anyone consuming it as such without some additional logic will not get correct results. Today it means "There are some trees there".

landuse proposal needs a migration plan :/ . It's also not clear if landuse=forest will become an actual landuse or get deprecated.

changeset/108435775

I've already had such discussion with Pikse.

My only conclusion from it is that he tags for the renderer while accusing others in tagging for the renderer.

>A tree-covered area (way/28065751) in Viljandi lossipark on the other hand covered the entire eastern part of the park and so based on such data it cannot be said even roughly where the park ends and the wood begins

>tags are not supposed to be chosen only based on if they are rendered in particular renderer, see [2].

Hi, something went very wrong here. Part of the road is duplicated.

Hi, why did you change it?

Hi, I'm trying to tidy up schools in Estonia. I think that such amenities are not really schools, but amenity=training. You can't really skip actual school and go here. Would you agree?

You've added wikidata, but not wikipedia article

wikipedia link seems to have been accidentally removed

I don't understand what's this change about. It's not a stadium and the challenge seems to be about adding wikidata ids of concrete stadiums.

Some pharmacies here have been put on building ways overwriting the main name and amenity of the building

Yeah, sorry, it wasn't you. But anyway since you know this stuff it's good that I've asked you. Thanks, it's fixed now.

node/1973425215

Hi, was the
place=hamlet
node/
intentionally removed from this node?

Please stop your mass modifications.

This is not round way/1110683537

I don't quite understand why make roads like this way/1070032863#map=19/58.25475/22.50382
round

Hello, please don't use Bing aerial imagery in Estonia. We have Estonian land board aerial imagery. I'm not familiar with the Map builder, but you can check out this area in iD editor
osm.org/edit?changeset=131576489#map=19/58.23161/27.39885

As you see the building does not exist

Hi!

I think that pedestrian streets are something which looks like a wide street, but where cars are not allowed highway=pedestrian

dgmapping also uses some different classification
changeset/130798351

But I think that paths in a park are just paths or footways.

When parking spaces don't fit into the parking lot like near Reval sport, don't be afraid to make the parking lot bigger.

Hi, thanks for contributing,
the parking spots in the middle don't line up with the road marking. On the right they are on top of waste container and what appears to be not a parking area.

Well, I think I've changed my mind and I can help. I don't think it'll be a lively community with anything to do. If it's half-dead I'll be happy. But there should be an easy default place to go to raise a question regarding Estonia in OSM.

There has to be some kind of election, correct?

And now I'm already regretting not having an Estonian OSM community. There is currently a project being done on adding parking lots in Tallinn by students of Estonian Academy Of Arts. I've contacted the teacher and asked if he could describe it somewhere so that everyone would understand what's going on and the question is where... I've proposed wiki, old forum or the mailing list, but obviously the new community would be better.

BTW, Zverik, he mentioned that he maybe would like if someone from the community would come to talk in person or over Zoom about OSM to students and I've recommended him to contact you. I hope you don't mind.