I've gone through all your changes just now, and I've removed most of the viewpoints you created as most of them were located within an existing leisure=bird_hide building. Where you had added a missing name or details I've copied that across to the existing object. I would recommend using the web editor going forwards, as organic maps is quite limited in adding and updating objects as you can see. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

Hi, thanks for your changes in the local area. If you are importing building footprints from mapwithai, please make sure that semidetached and terraced houses are split along their property boundaries rather than being merged together like this. You can enable the OSMUK cadastral parcels overlay to help do this. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, thanks.

Hi, thanks for adding these buildings. As these are all semidetached buildings, it would be preferable if they would be split along their property boundaries rather than merged together like this. Thanks.

Hi & welcome to OSM! I noticed you're adding building footprints from mapwithai/ microsoft/BuildingFootprints - please make sure only to accept these suggestions when they match reality closely. You should not import whole terraces as a single building area, they should be drawn with multiple connected building=house polygons as you can see in the surrounding areas. You can enable OSMUK cadastral parcels to highlight property boundaries & make this easier. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, thanks!

Thanks for your work splitting and improving these buildings! It would be really helpful if when you correct or split a building tagged microsoft/BuildingFootprints, you delete that tag. That way other contributors know that the building doesn't need to be manually reviewed anymore :)

Please make sure to sense-check buildings suggested by rapid/mapwithai - some of these buildings don't exist on aerial imagery and are just paved areas in back gardens.

Seems that quite a few unsplit semidetached buildings have been assigned uprns in this changeset, way/121993804 as just one example and there are quite a few in the vicinity.

Hi, if you are going to import buildings from microsoft/BuildingFootprints, please make sure to split semidetached and terraced houses respectively. I have split some along Winton Road and Stamford Road according to property boundaries.

Would be helpful to also remove source=microsoft/BuildingFootprints where buildings have been manually corrected & split, so we know we don't need to review them for quality :)

Hi, some of these buildings you have imported from microsoft building footprints are of poor quality - for example way/1534226560 does not accurately reflect the real geometry. Also, where there are semidetached or terraced houses, they should be split into individual building=house polygons rather than as big blobs. You can enable OSMUK cadastral parcels to help highlight property boundaries. Microsoft building footprints are not suitable for situations where houses are connected, such as here.

Thanks for fixing these up! Please make sure, when you have two semidetached houses that they share nodes with each other. They have been drawn very close to one another, but not connected. Thanks again for redoing these buildings :)

+ source=https://westhertscrem.org/new-crematorium/

Hi, you seem to be creating a lot of tourism=viewpoint nodes, the problem is they are being placed inside existing leisure=bird_hide buildings, which is the correct tag. If you want to add the correct names, it would be best to edit the existing bird hides rather than adding a duplicated node inside. If you need help with that let me know. It seems that organic maps does not show an icon for things tagged as leisure=bird_hide, so viewpoint was the closest thing you could select? I would also suggest that including (WWT London Wetland Centre) in the name is unnecessary, as this is implied by the surrounding nature reserve area. Thank you.

Hi, I noticed you've selected 'review requested' on all of your changesets? You seem to be a very experienced editor, this tag is for people who would like their changesets to be checked by others. Is that the case with all of these?

This is an experimental import to see if the quality of data is good enough and to see what conflation is needed between existing landuse, barriers and boundaries etc.

Well, I think car dealerships are in a unique place in regards to brand tagging. We don't really have first party dealerships, they are dealer networks for example Holden Group. So is the brand Holden Group and they sell Kias as a product, or is the brand Kia and Holden Group is the operator as is tagged here? I don't know of any other poi/shop type that has a similar situation going on.

Hi, when you are adding terraced houses, such as way/1533687272, they should be connected to their neighbours. Thanks.

Please make sure to split buildings where they are semidetached houses or terraced houses, for example way/1533717922. Some of the footprints you have accepted are wonky or do not include the full building area such as way/1533717931. Thanks.

way/112840201 has brand:wikidata the same as not:brand:wikidata?

according to the wiki, highway=unclassified is for 'minor public roads'. These are clearly not that. The fact they are named or part of a bus/taxi route does not affect the highway classification. They do not serve through traffic, they are only for the exclusive use of the Boring Company.