I mean for example this building, where it is only partially covered by building parts now way/921508463. In some 3D renderers, the left hand side of the building will not be rendered, because it is not covered by a building part.

I think you are misinterpreting the part of the wiki that you quoted - it says that you should use the tag building:part=yes for building parts that have the same function as the surrounding building, so in this case building=apartments and the parts within are tagged building:part=yes. It does not say that if the attributes of a part of the building are the same as the surrounding building that no building part is necessary.

The wiki page should make it clear that the whole footprint of a building should be covered with building parts, according to the Simple 3D Buildings schema. I will try to get someone to update the German page. The English page says this:

"Common mistakes:
Missing parts: If a building's parts cover only part of the building outline, the remainder of the building may not be visible in a standard-compliant 3D renderer."

Hopefully that is clear. Fröhliche Mappierung!

Hey, it's not correct to delete these building parts here. As part of the simple 3D buildings schema, a building polygon needs to be completely covered by building parts, even if those building parts have the same building:levels tagged as the surrounding building. So for example way/946524532 wasn't unecessary or duplicative, but is required for representing the building correctly in 3D. You should also not remove tags like roof:shape and building:colour from building parts where they are the same as the surrounding building polygon's tags - while renderers like F4 assume building parts have the same properties as their surrounding building, it is actually helpful to explicitly place these tags on each building part.

osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings - "The entire building outline should be filled with building:part=* areas, tagged with their respective height and other attributes."

Thanks.

way/1484873169 should not be tagged as farmland. It's very clearly used as a paddock for horses/animals, and is not ploughed or mowed.

Noticed you corrected the collection times syntax here, this was automatically entered by streetcomplete. Might be worth opening an issue if the selection dialogue is providing incorrect tags?

Could do, but it's not really standard practice to keep lifecycle prefixed website and fhrs tags. They're still in the history if anyone needed to check the website for a closed pub. I find people often forget to delete old tags when pois rebrand, so it keeps them clean for whatever appears next.

I'm not sure this is appropriate for OSM - it's not a serious proposal, is it? There's no way this is ever being built and it's not proposed by any governments.

Reverted - this changeset incorrectly created three United Kingdom relations, one for each overseas territory. The Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands are already part of the British Overseas Territory relation, please don't make such significant changes to country boundaries in the future without discussing them first.

Hi, I've reverted the geometry changes to Digswell Viaduct - the original alignment was correct, but the angle of the bing imagery makes the tracks and viaduct appear 10m too far to the West. The bridge area should actually be drawn according to where the base of the supports is, not the deck, in cases like this.
Regardless, thanks for your other changes locally, and please feel free to ask any questions should you have them!

I've removed the four duplicate Sports Direct shops that you created here.

Please take care when replacing nodes with areas - you should move all the address details and other details over, instead you deleted node/7221385596 without transferring this information

Please don't use name='public right of way', name is reserved for the actual name of paths, if any. In this case, these paths should be unnamed with designation=public_footpath

I have restored the grass and trees that you deleted - please don't remove things unless they have been removed, it's hard to know what your intentions were in this changeset because of the short changeset comment. It's also not appropriate to addd 'out of date food' to the name of a shop.

I've changed the cycling to highway=cycleway instead of highway=footway and removed the amenity=childcare nodes named 'Litter everywhere'.
I've also changed aerialway=zipwire to playground=zipwire.

I've reverted the changes two the two recreation grounds within the school areas - they were correct as-is

I've reverted this change, the way the mini roundabout was tagged as a node before was correct

I've removed the duplicate Luton Ambulance Station nodes here - you only need the one tagged on the building

I have made some corrections here - the dentist and nursery features were duplicated, with nonexistent buildings added.
name=Nursery Staff Parking is a descriptive name, it should be unnamed with access=private and operator=Rothesay Nursery instead

I have reverted some of the changes made here - it was not correct to delete the woods within Dallow Downs.

I've changed the tag to building=X + abandoned=yes, abandonded: prefix shouldn't be used on buildings

Thanks for adding these buildings and addresses! As you can see, a large amount of the buildings in Melksham need to be split into individual houses, so your contributions are definitiely appreciated. You can also try enabling 'OSMuk cadastral parcels' in iD's background menu to show property boundaries, which should help identify where to split houses. If you plan on working with a lot of buildings, try the more advanced josm editor with the building tools plugin which makes drawing offset terraces super easy! Happy mapping!