Ciao!
Auch hier, doppelt befüllte Tags machen keinen Sinn.
Und haben die am SA wirklich bis 19:00 offen?

Again, since you requested a review; I think it’s unnecessary to duplicate information, e.g. fill both ‘phone’ and ‘contact:phone’ with different information.

Ciao!
Since ‘review_requested’; I would add a craft=builder tag to the office instead of “hiding” the information in the description.
Gruess us Bärn,
habi

Ciao!
Since ‘review_requested’; I would add a craft=builder tag to the office instead of “hiding” the information in the description.
Gruess us Bärn,
habi

https://kfo-elektro.ch/uber-uns/ ist laut deren Webseite an der Hohlenbaumstrasse 17, oder sind die auch im 128i drin?
Jedenfalls; das Elektrounternehmen könnte auch hier eingetragen werden, dann wird die Karte für alle BenutzerInnen besser.

Ich hab' mit meiner Lieblingssuchmaschine dies hier gefunden: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=coiffeur+Buchthalerstrasse+post&t=osx&ia=web und daraufhin mit changeset/101918384 die Coiffure Piccolo eingetragen.

Hallo Patrick und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap

Da 'review_requested' hier mein Senf zu deinem ersten Changeset:

- Das Datum im Kommentar ist nicht ein wirklich guter Changeset-Kommentar. Dieser sollte beschreiben, was du geändert hast, hier z.B. "einige Details erfasst und Namen geändert".
- node/8567189744 ist nur mit "name=Chistenpass* erfasst, was ist das genau?
- Die Dicke Berta (node/8567189745) hat nur Name und Adresse. Ist das ein Kunstwerk?

Gruss aus Bern,
Habi

It's unnecessary to tag the name to the basketball field, `sport=basketball` is the sufficiently necessary tag.

Ciao SNTLFSL
It would be cool if you constrain your changeset to a little bit smaller regions.
You've added `name=basket field` to way/587922292, this is unnecessary (and has been removed by another user).

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

Hier ebenfalls; ist das Gebäude einfach leerstehend, oder 'was anderes drin, das evtl. hinzugefügt werden könnte?

Hallo Urs
Ich bin hier, da du `review_requested` hast.

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap, schön hilft du mit!

Ist das Gebäude jetzt einfach leer, oder ist etwas anderes drin?
Je nachdem könnte mensch das sonst mit dem sog. 'lifecycle-prefix' kennzeichnen: osm.wiki/DE:Key:disused:, also z.B. `disused:amenity=post_office`.

Gruss aus Bern,
habi

Additionally, what's GCAA exactly, which you mention as source here?

In Concourse A you've added several ways through the building, you might/should tag them with either a descriptive 'layer' tag or mark them as `covered=yes` to describe their vertical relation to the building.

Hey KhaledN
Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
In this changeset you've added a lot of ways tagged as `airportasset=lateral' which is an unknown tag.
What do these assets signify?

Greetings from Switzerland and happy mapping,
habi

PS: I came here from https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101627406

Hey!

In this changeset you've added several ways tagged as `nnat=w`, which seems like a typo to me: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/15ox

Did you mean to tag these as `natural=water`?
The ways don't look like water-features to me on the Maxar imagery...

PS: I came here via https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm

Welcome to OpenStreetMap

It would be good if the comment of your changeset describes what you actually changed and is not just some random sequence of characters.

Happy mapping and greetings from Switzerland,
habi
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101621476

Ciao Abnm

It seems that you're adding bogus data to OpenStreetMap, which is considered vandalism.
Please refrain from doing so.
Additionally, it would nice if the comment of your changesets is not just keyboard-mashing, but describing what you're changing.

I've reverted this changeset with changeset/101706394

way/54969181 is also called 'Holligenstrasse' :)

It's very pedantic, but I think that a `highway=service` (highway=service) describes it better than a footway, as there might be cars that can go to the castle, just not the general public, which is taken care of with the `access=private` tag.

Additionally, there's already a gate here: node/704367508 so the tag is doubly redundant.

Ciao CiroP

Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap, great that you're here!

`access=no` is for only for "military or government facilities" (see access=no), maybe `access=private` would be more suited in this case.
And additionally, you tagged the whole Holligenstrasse leading to the Schloss Holligen (way/54969181) with `barrier=gate`.
This would be more suited on a node at the gate.

Happy to continue the discussion (also in German if that's better).

E Gruess usem Liebefeld,
habi