That's how I understood the tag. And I'd say rental advertisements like these are definitely out of scope of OSM. There is already a lot of spam in this respect by people who try to use OSM to advertise their real estate which gets removed regularly.

If there's a permanent sign with the number of the owner of the building, that might be worth of a tag, e.g.
owner:phone.

Hi,
I don't think that adding private power meters is within the scope of OSM. In general we do not map installations in private residential buildings for privacy reasons, and this seems to be one.
I'd like to ask you to ask for some opinions on that in the forums.

Hi,
I see that you introduce a large set of new tags to describe monuments.
In general this seems to be a good idea with a reasonable tagging scheme.
Nevertheless I think it would be good to have this scheme fully documented and discussed in the community before there are too many objects added.

Hi,
could you check the other highway reference tags? The spelling of
'ref:au.QLD.noosa.bridge.assetno' doesn't agree with the common one
e.g. "ref:AU-QLD:ipswich:culvert"
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ref%3AAU-

Hi,
could you check this relation, it got a incomplete "charge:condition" tag.

If you like, you can add it, but it needs to be more specific. The POI is a restaurant, so I wouldn't expect any kind of rental there.
I see how someone might assume some rental shop here, but I think the description is better - it's very unlikely that any software shows the negative "no rental", but is much more likely to show descriptions.

I know that these tags come from a preset. The problem is that the tagging scheme has neither been discussed nor documented, but is being pushed forward by a single user. Due to the missing documentation and discussion, there is no and will be no support from any tool.

In fact I can't see anything complicated with the signs you linked. All fit in the common tagging scheme nicely - as said, with an extension to mark the sign as roundabout-style.

It's impossible to discuss this in a changeset comment, I propose to move it to a thread in the community forum.
We might find that we actually need a new scheme, but then it has been discussed and a documentation can be written.

Please check the 'rickshaw' tags you added. These are not in use in OSM. Did you mean auto_rickshaw or cycle_rickshaw?

Hi,
this destination sign got again about 20 new keys that are not used in other places.

There's a problem with the numbered tags:
- I wouldn't use numbered tags on a single-panel sign, if you want to have a change to tag different panels on other signs. Numbers are more or less the only possibility to do that.
- the numbers don't match in the left direction: The 'pier' symbol is matched with 'Tarragona', but in fact all symbols are equally in a separate line.

This simple sign can be easily described in the existing tagging schemes - with one new, additional tag to note that it shows a roundabout with 5 exits.

node/12645204191

Hi,
is that reverted correctly? This shop node now got completely different tags:
node/11655897469/history

I reverted this import for now so that you can start importing these objects again in a clean way.

Hi,
you used the tag "gtfs:ref" here. This is not used in other places. Could you check the documentation for the correct tag? Might be gtfs:stop_id

Hi,
something went wrong here.
First, different languages are given using a ":xx" prefix, not "_xx". It's also not necessary to give several translations if the Latin name is given - all translations can generated automatically with a simple software, there is no need to have all of them in the OSM database thousands of time.

Hi,
something went wrong here. All these objects don't have any valid tag.
Also: Please don't forget to add meaningful changeset comments to your edits!

All nodes have these wrong tags:

Nom = Fondation médicale Saint Raphael
amenity = batiment Public
categorie = Structure privée
institution_de_tutelle = MINSANTE
xcoord = 11.6037621
ycoord = 3.9778637

There is no correct source given and the mandatory link to an import documentation is missing.

All nodes have these tags:

etat = Fonctionnel
niveau_de_degradation = eleve
xcoord = 11.5779586
ycoord = 3.9436049

There is no correct source given and the mandatory link to an import documentation is missing.

I think I managed:

https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/?EXP=Tu-Fr%2012%3A00-13%3A45%2C16%3A30-19%3A30%2CTu%2CFr%2019%3A30-21%3A30%2CWe%2013%3A45-16%3A30%2CSH%20Mo%2012%3A00-19%3A30%2CSH%2013%3A45-16%3A30%2CSu%2CPH%2010%3A00-19%3A00%2CSa%2014%3A30-19%3A00%2CJul-Aug%20SH%20Tu-Su%2010%3A00-14%3A30%2CJul-Aug%20SH%2019%3A00-20%3A00%2CJul-Aug%20SH%20Tu%2CFr%2021%3A30-21%3A45%3BSa-Su%2013%3A00-14%3A30%20off%3BPH%2013%3A00-14%3A30%20off&lat=48.7769&lon=1.1844&mode=0&DATE=1707856140000

Could you check that for any (very possible) mistakes?
There is a problem with holiday definitions in May 2025, so better check it in 2024 :)

Hi,
something went wrong here. All these nodes don't have valid tags.
If you want to import a larger number of objects, please have a look to our import guidelines:
osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Hi,
something went wrong here. All these nodes don't have valid tags.
If you want to import a larger number of objects, please have a look to our import guidelines:
osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines

Hi,
something went wrong here. All these nodes don't have valid tags.
If you want to import a larger number of objects, please have a look to our import guidelines:
osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines