way/691239567
Are you sure about this being farmyard "Solvang"? Currently, it is merely a small park and a building used to support the nearby church and graveyard.

"Vandparken" stammer fra:
changeset/35008335

Gad vide, hvorfor den blev markeret dér. Måske tog vidste man ikke, hvad "water_park" betyder?

Er du sikker på, at det er *marken*, og ikke *bakken*, der hedder Langebjerg?

Oh, ok.

Feel free to tag it so.

Note that it isn't just *made* from rock, though. It *is* a large un-modified stone. These are often used to block car access around these parts. Ideally barrier=rock should be used, but I don't think that is supported.

No problem at all.

Sorry. I tried to type "desc" and didn't check if auto-fill read it as "description".

The block is a large rock, but the iD editor doesn't like that being used as a barrier.

I've fixed it now.

Oh, by the way, what do you think about the actual Nazca *lines* being labelled as "geoglyphs" despite each just being a straight line? I find it annoying, but I sure don't know how they *should* be tagged, as they're more or less just ridges dug in sand.

I don't believe I added any glyph, I think I just consolidated the glyphs already there into a smaller number of relations, but I'll take your word for it.

I find it messy to have every single line count as its own geoglyph. Just look at this glyph:
relation/18699860
It used to be counted as 96 geoglyphs, one for each of its lines.

The paths going through buildings should have their end points placed on the very edges of the buildings, rather than just outside (or inside) of them.
I've fixed it and added "covered=partial".
changeset/163678157

You know, you could always *tell me* when you revert my changes, so I learn what I did wrong, and so I don't just repeat it.

Hmm... Der kan man se...

way/689887109/history
Currently, both the building, farmyard and meadow are named "Blegen".
Wouldn't it be better to restrict it to the meadow, since that's where the *bleaching* took place?

Du fandt et skråfoto over fyrene på Tærø, men du fik vist ikke rettet dem. Og jeg kan kun se forfyret på skråfoto.

Ikke efter bogen, nej, men se noten for den nordlige side. Jeg ved ikke engang nok, til at kunne sige, om kablet stadig ligger der.
Ret det til som du ønsker, eller slet linjen.

I agree. Feel free to change them to "Locality", or some other feature type instead.

If you do, please keep the other tags (tents=no; fee=yes; etc.) intact, in case someone changes their types again.
(And while you're at it, consider moving the "Camp Ruaha" node somewhat to the northwest. All 15 cabins north of Elefantsletten are part of it.)

Note that "Camp Masai Mara" is represented by two nodes; one north of "Savannen" (2+4+3 cabins), and one on the south side (8 cabins).

Tak skal du have for linket.
Det ser dog ud til, at det skal hedde:

power=tower
line_management=transition
location:transition=yes

Det har jeg i hvert fald rettet det til.

De skulle vel ikke have et kort over undervandskabler? Jeg kan ikke finde et på "kortoverblik.dk", og det virker syndt for relationen, at den mangler det kabel.
relation/5465142/history

Tak skal du have.

way/1225217556
Den midterste del af dette stykke bruges i øjeblikket som et almindeligt spor til skovbrug. Må jeg fjerne den midterste del, så det ikke overlapper med skovsporet?

Doesn't seem to be the problem in this instance. I have changed it.
But yeah, a river is an abstract concept, one can be part of another, or two rivers might even overlap partially...

As for the tunnel segments, I've realized that the optimal way to make Waterways is to create one river Line object, name it and make it a new relation, and then expand it by rightclicking and using the Continue and/or Split functions. That way, each new Line automatically given the name and relation memberships of the original object.
A Waterway relation is much easier to deal with than 3 Lines, and a Multipolygon relation is handier than an equivalent decagon (10-sided) Area.

(I am going through most of the named waterways I can find on Zealand and putting them into Relations. When this is done, maybe the administrators can use this to study how Waterways work, somehow.)