Hi there, thanks for your edit. This path is still under construction and inaccessible to the public.

Hey there! Welcome to OSM. This footway is representing the ground-level path between SLC and Berkner underneath the skybridge, not the skybridge itself. There's no way object for the skybridge connection yet (I don't think there are any way objects for any of the skybridges, currently). If you want to add them, feel free! But this way you edited is for the ground, not the skybridge :)

Hi there, why did you add cycleways as separate ways when there does not appear to be any physical separation of the bike lane from the road?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186410405

Hi there, welcome to OSM! Your changeset looks good, though I would mark it as access=private instead of access=no - =no is when it's completely inaccessible to ANYONE (e.g. permanently closed), while =private is for private ways like this one.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/190228981

Hey there! This changeset looks okay, though I would mention that unless foot/horse/bike access is specifically prohibited (e.g., by sign), I would refrain from adding the corresponding access tags. Routers should already penalize taking those roads, but also one could probably safely walk alongside those roads without getting run over.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/188496329

Hi there, why was the building deleted? Also, you cannot be copying data from Google Maps. https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#2.1.5._Can_I_copy_data_from_Google?
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182212623

Hey there, thanks for the changeset! Please make sure to resolve issues that pop up in iD - looks like this changeset got flagged for having points too close together. iD will have quick fixes for warnings, usually, so it's pretty easy to resolve.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181789597

This changeset looks good, I think!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181791673

This changeset looks good, except you do have some crossing roads (Melody and Woodland) that don't have an intersecting node. iD has a warning for this, and it can automatically resolve it if you tell it to. I've gone ahead and fixed it myself, but in the future, make sure to check the warnings/issues pane in iD!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181774128

This was previously detailed here: changeset/181701405#c1587075 and reverted 2 hours before this changeset: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181706867

This changeset moved the whole apartment complex way
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179015806

Hi there, these roads are not private access, as the public can drive along these roads at any hours of the day without restriction.

Why do you follow the right edge of the lane instead of the actual centerline? There are also weird kinks in the entrance/exit ramps to/from the service road. Also, you are being particularly passive-aggressive with these changeset comments, despite not putting your own comment on the original changeset that made these geometry changes.

Hey there! I'd like to ask why you counted lanes that weren't fully formed (you counted lanes from when they start emerging from the curb, not from when they're done emerging), which conflicts with this section in the wiki: osm.wiki/Lanes#Street

Hey there, thanks for your change! There's no need to split these streets unless something changes with their tags, like road surface or lane count. Also, landuses should generally not share nodes with roads, since they make it hard to change the landuses separate from the road way.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177487460

boundary=census must be closed, why is this tag only applied to this part of the full Tucson boundary?

Hello, I believe CROF in the building name needs to be expanded to its full title, as abbreviations are usually not allowed in names. DART is fine as that is one of its official names

Hi there, and thanks for your change! The operator tag additions are nice, but I don’t think the name of a track should be named after the service that runs on it - that’s what the route relations are for. The tracks are physically for light rail vehicles, and technically any DART LRV can traverse the tracks without being on the red/blue line, so the name field should be reverted to DART Light Rail.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177100622

Looks good to me!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176924629

at least in Sachse it is