Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Please only add things to the map that actually exist. I have reverted your changes in changeset/45817208

Reverted in changeset/45817130

Reverted in changeset/45817130

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Please only add objects to the map that actually exist. I have reverted your changes in changeset/45817130

Thanks for your answer! Maybe you should add access=private to these paths (or access=permissive if the public is allowed there). See also access=*

Hi Knuckle Mean, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for your recent additions to the map! In this changeset your transformed a bike path into a footway. Note that the previous tagging already allowed people to walk there as it included a tag for foot=yes. I restored the highway=cycleway attribute as these ways look like designated bike paths

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding Coal Creek to the map! Some of your paths added look a little strange as they seem to zig-zag through private property. What kind of paths are they?

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding some footpaths to the map. I will remove the park as this apartment complex it not really what people have in mind when thinking about a park: leisure=park

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Please only add things that exist in reality, I removed these fictional objects here: changeset/45579287

The Target is already on the map as "Super Target", I'll go ahead and remove the duplicate. See way/167529417

Hi dvdhns, could you double check the name of the peak that you entered as "Point 122227"? I think there is one extra digit ;)

Hi, I've seen that tried to the way to make the way appear on the map. However, pistes are not rendered on the "standard" map that you see on osm.org. There are some specialty maps focusing on outdoor or ski activities, and pistes get rendered there (but highway=piste will not have an impact there). See for example https://www.thunderforest.com/maps/outdoors/ or maybe even better for this purpose http://www.opensnowmap.org/?zoom=16&lat=40.58463&lon=-105.10927&layers=snowbase&marker=false

Cross-reference to reverting CS: changeset/44611333

Hi rsavoye, I will undo this changeset as well as the follow-up changeset/43789884. Your change of merging these ways led to all properties of the way being applied to the entire way, so it appeared that the entire way was a bridge. If some of the properties only apply to parts of the way, it is common practice (and also the only way) to split the way. It is also useful to have this detail for a user (i.e., in this case the hiker would know that he can expect a bridge to cross the stream). This can lead to trails being split in shorter segments - if one wants, these can be linked into a relation (more details at osm.wiki/Hiking and route=hiking). For an example in this area, see some trail in the Rocky Mountain National Park: relation/6747603.

Is this still needed?

Please check with Bing imagery, the current representation seems wrong. Maybe wrong forward/backward tags?

Welcome to OSM! Is there a reason why the service alley should not be connected to Arapahoe? This prevents routing onto this street. If cars can drive from Arapahoe into this alley, it should therefore be connected.

The lane count (lanes=5) was correct, the mistake was in the count of forward and backward lanes. I have changed this: way/327095053/history

I think this was an error, but corrected in the wrong way. The error was not in the lane count, but in the turn:lane:forward value. I have changed it, see way/400523645

Not sure what was wrong here, I have re-tagged the lane count and the turn lanes which should be clearly visible in the Bing imagery
way/400523691/history