Could you check the roundabout flare roads like way/1184663842 - are the one way directions correct? (I don't have sat imagery to check, error was sourced from a QC tool.)

I can try to revert the change if possible, but were there other changes in this changeset that should be kept. They could just be disconnected but I suspect someone may reconnect them in the future by mistake so perhaps the revert to parallel slightly offset lines would be best?

Just needed to put the tag on the relation object instead of the way object. I'll go ahead and do it then.

hey, thanks for trying to resolve note/1975179 but I think the tag should be added to object relation/3160247 instead of object way/174701039 perhaps?

BTW node/11523691778 is a specific example where it's not quite right to have the upper and lower decks of the bridge connected.

note/4072832 brought to attention that there seems to be some connectivity issues with this or some related edit. I'm not sure which edits introduced it but this was mentioned.
It looks like the upper and lower decks of the bridge are connected which is a bit problematic. TBH, OSM is not very well suited for overlapping layers so having the two layers slightly offset is better than having them connected but of course it's not exact. What are your thoughts?

Hi, Welcome to OSM and thanks for updating this! Just wanted to note that some of the old obsolete data is still there, not sure if organic maps can fix this but if you could, delete the old data (Lucky)? Unfortunately I don't know how to use organic maps so can't help you there, but if you aren't sure what to do, I can delete the old data for you if you wish. Thanks again!

Bing Streetside.

This is a T intersection, there should not be 4 roads connected to it. The main reason is style consistency - while in this case it's the lesser of evils, if there are 5 or so roads that intersection, it is hard for a routing program to tell you that you need to take the left....which left, there are two lefts, but one is actually straight. This style completely removes the ambiguity. I had some experience with some routers (though this intersection shouldn't be as ambiguous) report that going straight is actually taking a right turn because the angle of the drawing is enough to trick the router into thinking a turn needs to happen. With the dual carriageway starting slightly after the intersection, this can't happen.

Sometimes a 5 way intersection is really there in real life, then it should be drawn that way, but this in reality is a 3-way intersection.

I don't know about the other change, have to indicate specifically what was lost.

Personally I'd think Memorial Park Loop should be a service road, as these roads were not really for driving through the area as a through-fare but rather to "service" the site - the graves, otherwise it looks good, I had no idea what the pathways are!

Hi, I had a few comments:
Way way/1206178884 seems to be disconnected from the road network, you might want to attach it. Also since the driveway that's closest to it is marked private, your driveway should also be marked private.
I'm also not sure what needs to be done for note/3877778 - was it already done here?

way/88373103 if it really is still there, should be visible in imagery. Canals are meant to be large so they conduct enough water for irrigation. The tagging is suspicious as "derelict" as this should still be visible unless it's underground then it needs layer=-1/tunnel.

also is way/595198480 truly on surface or underground?

Satellite Imagery is sufficient, especially if the "historical" object that should be visible is no longer visible.

Deletion is not a problem. We have people looking at deletions and if all else fails, people re-add things that are visible in satellite imagery - hence the same thing applies for deleting private roads. Yes they will disappear for a while, but they will come back.

In this case as it's historical, it won't come back, and it's fine because it's not coming back.

The original author of the object does not have to be the only person who cares about the object, as shown here you seem to have interest in maintaining these objects for whatever reason. My sole concern here is that they are both causing validation errors due to improper tagging (derelict versus razed? layers?) and clearly demonstrating a conflict between objects that are currently there - and as many of us have decided, the best course of action is deletion.
As my main interest is streets, this is really of no concern to me, but I will have to put in my two cents that I fullheartedly agree with all who have deleted these objects.

It's up to whoever cares about the feature to move historical features to OHM. However there is no canal water flowing through peoples' houses right now and there sure isn't a ditch going through people's living rooms, so these canals *SHOULD* be deleted.

But it is still wrong. Either it must be marked as layer=-1 if you *KNOW* it's there as a culvert, else it should be deleted as building on top of canals. Do you know if it's now a culvert?

Derelict means bad condition not historical, And since the canal simply is no longer seen in imagery, it's a candidate for deletion. Therefore it should be removed and perhaps placed on OpenHistoricalMap so people know it used to exist here.

Well this is the beauty of having an unmarked crossing here: this is a legitimate place to cross, and since it is unmarked, the person when they get here should choose the safest way for themselves and usually they would walk up the street a little, cross, and get back on the sidewalk, and yes it may involve a little grass traversal.

There appears to be a curb lowering there, despite dumping people so close to memorial avenue, but it implies that people have the option of crossing there. Else there would be no concrete connecting the path to the road on the southwest corner of that intersection.

discussion at changeset/138677566

In fact I think it's less safe for someone to be forced to cross memorial avenue and back - just because you don't want to put an unmarked crossing there.
I'm still waiting for a good reason why it shouldn't - which at this point would be a sign there that says "pedestrians may not cross here".