1) way/1138034823#map=19/59.48113/24.94395 most of the warnings seem to be about such problems.
The ditch here has a waterflow direction which goes against the flow.

10) The same goes about cycleway here. There is no separate cycleway, it should be removed.

Hi, a big change for a first one, thanks for contributing.

Some things could be improved.
1) Don't upload changes if you have warnings
2) Where did you get all the park names? It's important that you didn't invent them, but it looks like you did. You can always leave the name blank. Same goes for volleyball court, "Muuga lasteaeda mänguväljak", "Õunapuu joogiveekraan", Viljapuu terviserada and so on. You should not invent names.
3) Volleyball court is duplicated, there is an area and a single node. Single node could be deleted.
Same goes for Muuga lasteaed, Sinu Pood, Aharon hostel (hostel and restaurant can be separate, but not 2 hostels and a restaurant).
4) I wouldn't say that area along Õunapuu is a park. Not everything green is a park. Same goes for Poodi pargiala, most of the Kääraoja lineaarne park and maybe some other "parks".
5) When you updated the kindergarten building shape you've lost the address.

The old tags are
addr:housenumber=52/54
addr:country=EE
addr:street=Ploomipuu pst
addr:postcode=74117
maaamet:ETAK=7509887
building=kindergarten
addr:city=Maardu

6) way/783376502
there is no such key and value as path=path
7) way/26916177 craft=electrician is about an electrician (a person) who offers his services there. If it's a power substation, then it should be a
power=substation
substation=minor_distribution
8) It's not required to name a landuse=commercial. Especially the Sinu Pood one also has a hotel on the same ground.
9) That bridge way/1138034747
here is a highway=path and not a highway=residential like surrounding roads.
it's a high priority to get fixed, car navigation in apps will to plot a route on this road!
10) Viljapuu terviserada in the North goes by the roadside of a road. It should just connect to the road and not be a separate way.

>So yes, why wouldn't I also say that both of these tags may and often do denote both landuse and landcover.

And often they do not.

>While I don't see any evidence for your claim that natural=wood is for only landcover (or even evidence to claim that majority of users interpret it like that).

Since we can't trust natural=wood to denote landuse, as described in the wiki and reality, the conclusion from it is that it correctly represents landcover and may or may not represent landuse. You for some reason decided that it has to represent landuse.

You kind of ignore the point where you break data consumers which don't care about the landcover yet.

Hi, what's the source of this data? It's missing in the Estonian Education Information System and I can't find anything about this "school".

>I'm not sure from where you get the idea that these other tags also denote only landcover

I get it from the situation we are in and it's also described in the wiki osm.wiki/Forest

We both would like them to denote something more, but the reality is different.

>There you instead referred to yet another renderer (osmlanduse.org) that is unable to intpret overlapping polygons in a meaningful way (it just discards either of the overlapping areas based an arbitrary critera).

I think it just didn't re-render at the time I've referenced it.

You'd still need to be able to decide what to do with overlapping landuses if you want to consume such data. And in park you can just prioritize parks if you need it.

No matter how many times you say it, natural=wood is not a landuse. If you consume it as such, it's your problem. But it's strange that your want to break other clients which don't support unconfirmed proposal yet.

see also osm.wiki/Street_parking

Hi, these are not really parking lots, aren't they? Just a street where you can legally park. Parking spaces aren't even marked.

I believe that parking:* directly on the road is a better option here. parking:both=*

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?