You set tourism=apartment on a lot of these buildings, but the changeset comment is only “added condos and garages”. Are these furnished apartments that tourists can temporarily rent near the sea (in which case the tag is appropriate), or apartment buildings that people live in permanently?

What is the source of the village name "Poblado Chulavsta (El Chorizo)" that you added in Baja California in this changeset? The spelling should be "Chulavista", but when I passed through the area, I saw no signage supporting this name.

This changeset marked the Santa Ana Canyon road (34.10658, -117.10152) access=private. However, are bicycles allowed on it? The other roads to the south are specifically marked for bicycles. If cyclists can use this way, the tagging needs to be changed to motor_vehicle=private.

What is the source for the access=destination tag on Lake Drive? (The road going south from 33.08920, -117.11343.) I changed this to motor_vehicle=destination, because the access= tag is usually too general, but I wonder if even motor_vehicle=destination is justified. Is there signage there indicating that the road is for residents only?

Please do not add name:de tags unless the name is actually in German. Here at Col Tiz Timicha (32.2864682, -5.3073653), that is the French name, which is already present, and not the German name.

Please use correct tagging. A swimming pool should be tagged leisure=swimming_pool. Your use of natural=water was incorrect. Also, you do not need to add generic name= tags like "Shetitore" or "Swimming Pool".

When the =path standard is well-recognized and now exclusively used across some other European countries with good cycling infastructure, updating the tagging instead of dealing with a router’s developer seems a better solution for the future.

Furthermore, iD only tags as highway=cycleway when a user intentionally selects from among presets, but it recognizes preexisting =path tagging. Therefore, I wouldn’t expect novice mappers to tag back to highway=cycleway, because they would not even see any problem.

As far as I am aware, the most popular OSM-based bike routers (OSMAnd, Brouter, Organic Maps, Komoot) have supported =path tagging already for years now.

Both Vespucci and JOSM now use highway=path tagging. I was motivated to retag these in Tartu because I personally experienced problems with foot routing that the modern =path tagging will ameliorate.

This edit:

1) Removed a border_control tag on a building (per OSM wiki, it should appear only on a way).

2) Removed barrier=gates before border_control tags, which arguably duplicated border_control tags and generate Osmose errors due to lack of access tagging.

3) Added surface= tags from publicly available images of this border crossing.

4) Added building=public to US government buildings at the crossing.

At this bridge on a tertiary highway, cyclists join the main road. There is no separate bridge and no cycleway lane markings. The separate cycleway bridge mapped previously was fictional, apparently created for the sake of bicycle routing on the Eurovelo 4 route. However, bicycle routing is more accurately specified by the tagging in the present changeset, which uses bicycle=designated tags to reflect the tertiary highway’s designation as an official Czech bicycle route.

Please do not add wild-camping spots to Openstreetmap. OSM only documents campsites that are in some way official. If you want to share wild-camping places, there are other places for that (e.g. the app iOverlander).

What is your source for all the tourism=camp_site nodes added around Lake Metsovo-Chrysovitsa-Grevenitso? (For example, 39.8320909, 21.1189556). I find it hard to believe that there are so many recognized campsites there.

I see that you edited this road:

way/683595579

Is this cross-boarder road actually open to traffic? (And is it open to traffic from third-country citizens?) If not, the part of the road crossing over the board needs an access=private or access=permit tag.

Hi, I see that you have tagged a number of solar farms in Greece. However, you used the power=generator tag etc. According to the OSM wiki:

plant:source=solar#Enclosed_solar_power_plant

that tagging is only appropriate when adding each individual panel inside the area. When you have drawn the entire area, the correct tagging is power=plant and plant:method/source tags.

I have fixed some of these, but only the ones I have seen with my own eyes.

Is the intersection at 52.1126777, 23.1504025 correct? It looks very different in the Geoportal imagery.

Is there actually a sidewalk along the road at coordinates 51.9074006, 22.366938? Geoportal imagery does not show any sidewalk there.

You added surface=cobblestone to some combined footway/cycleway in Belchatów. Cobblestone is probably not the correct surface; such sidewalks in Poland are generally surface=paving_stones. Please check these ways.

This is important for bicycle routing – routers may refuse to send cyclists down cobblestone ways because they are considered too rough and bumpy.

Could you please move the stop_position node at 51.5922990, 18.9605983 off the intersection of the one-way entrance/exit ways? Geoportal imagery clearly shows that the stop position is a few meters more to the east.

I could do this myself, but I don't want to damage all of the bus-route relations in this town.

Yeah, very_bad is more of a tag used on roads which even normal cars would find risky or impassable.

That road looks perfectly manageable for bikes with robust wheels (the definition of smoothness=bad on the wiki).