Hi, ElliottPlack!
My name is Polina, and I’m a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
The key difference between the access and motor_vehicle tags is that “access” affects pedestrians as well. Therefore, I agree with StreetSurveyor's edits that it would be clearer to use motor_vehicle=private here.
However, since pedestrian paths along the road are already mapped as separate ways in OSM, and there is a sign stating 'Authorized vehicles only' as seen in a Lyft-owned image (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CJUYin38UvV5fS3kLtE9WXF1jcutgnvB/view?usp=drive_link), and at the time of our edits, the bicycle=yes tag was present, adding the access=private tag also seems acceptable in this context.

Best regards, Polina.

Hi, skquinn!
My name is Polina, and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention and fixing my mistake. It seems that I haven’t noticed the ‘lanes:backward’ and ‘lanes:forward’ tags when adding the oneway tag. I sincerely apologize for this oversight.

Best regards, Polina.

Hi, Allison P!
My name is Polina, and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention and fixing my mistake. Agree with you, now I see that there is a pedestrian path. I think that I added it as a service road due to the bad quality of the satellite image that was available at the time of the changeset.
I sincerely apologize for this oversight.

Best regards, Polina.

Hi, csomerville!
My name is Polina, and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. I removed the ‘oneway’ tag because due to the current geometry the existing ‘oneway’ tag blocked some maneuvers at this intersection, which are allowed based on the road markings. I left the road geometry unchanged, since it was added recently by another mapper, and in our practice, we try not to change geometry without apparent reasons for that.

However, I agree with you that it would be preferable in this instance to map this intersection without taking into account the physical barrier as bidirectional with the traffic_calming=island tag (example node/10628563875/history). But according to the OSMwiki this tag should be used between two lanes of a carriageway.

Best regards, Polina.

Hi, Baloo Uriza!
My name is Polina, and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you so much for paying attention to this.
I want to assure you that the Lyft mapping team takes the OpenStreetMap rules seriously and that all of our resources are compliant with them. To make edits, the Lyft OSM team uses proprietary features created and owned by Lyft, specifically the street-level imagery from Lyft’s drivers taken during rides in various markets and Lyft drivers' GPS tracks. Also, as "proprietary aerial imagery" for now, we use Nearmap imagery. They do allow us to use their imagery for OSM edits by license. That means our evidence fully complies with the OSM requirements. This data is updated frequently, and we try to make edits based on the most recent data.
This information is in the description of my profile in the "Proprietary sources" section.

Best regards, Polina

Hi, Brian!
My name is Polina, and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you so much for paying attention to this. You are right, it is better to remove the tunnel=yes tag under the bridge according to the OSMwiki tunnel=*. It seems that I haven’t noticed that you added the bridge=yes tag to the upper way, and now this ‘tunnel’ tag is really redundant. I’ve fixed my mistake in the OSM changeset (way/803871146/history) and also along with this edit I have removed the layer=0 tag based on OSMwiki layer=*.
I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that the incorrect tunnel tag application may have been caused.

Best regards, Polina

Hi txemt,
The Lyft Mapping team usually works on very specific OSM aspects, so our edits often cover only a limited group of tags within specific projects we run. We normally don’t do bulk updates in the area because of that. In the mentioned case, we were focused on geometry changes only. At the same time, it is our policy to be careful with available resources, so we use a short list of them. Unfortunately, using the county property appraiser has not been on our radar so far, but we do appreciate your suggestion.
Thank you for your time and effort!

Best regards, Polina

My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. In this changeset I only fixed the geometry and added an access tag. Unfortunately, I didn't have any evidence to check and correct street names in the area, so I didn’t work with them.
Thank you for correcting street names based on your own data.
Best regards, Polina

Hi, impiaaa!
My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Seems that I didn’t notice the cycle lane, so that is why I fixed the ‘turn:lanes’ tag.
Thank you so much for paying attention and fixing my mistake. I apologize for any inconvenience this edit may have caused.

Best regards, Polina

Hi, DUGA!
My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention to this and for your suggestion. Let me assure you that although we use OSM for navigation mainly, the major criteria for our edits is always generally accepted practices in OSM, not the compliance with our GPS. In OSM, we try to reflect reality as correctly as possible, so I added all the passages at the gas station. Right now our localization system is working fine at such gas stations. However we will closely monitor its behavior here in the future.
I also agree that the number of passages under the roof can be represented with other ways, for example in lanes tag for less roads mapped. If you have any information about the best practices or discussions regarding such roads at the gas stations, we will be happy to learn more about them.
Best regards, Polina

Hi, Spaghetti Monster!
My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention to this. Looks like I accidentally added the addr:housenumber tag. I’ve fixed my mistake in the OSM changeset changeset/118767800.
I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused.
Best regards, Polina

Hi, Spaghetti Monster!
My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. The turn restriction was added according to the sign ’no_left_turn’ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hzh2IBXi8lx1_la9C1hz41kYARJDDMN0/view?usp=sharing. But I agree with you that adding the ‘one-way’ is the correct way to prevent a left turn at this location. Thank you so much for paying attention and fixing my mistake. I apologize for any inconvenience this edit may have caused.
Best regards, Polina

Hi, Marc Zoutendijk!
My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft.
Thank you so much for paying attention to this.
I want to assure you that the Lyft mapping team takes the OpenStreetMap rules seriously and that all of our resources are compliant with them. We have a special agreement with Nearmap that allows us to use their imagery that we pay for in our OSM editing. To make edits we often use Nearmap aerial imagery and we have one for this location that is dated 10-09-2021. But for fixing lanes tags we used the proprietary street-level imagery as it is more up-to-date than Nearmap - the Nearmap imagery automatically got to the imagery_used tag at the changeset properties, as it was active in the iDeditor while we were applying the edit. The proprietary street-level images are the ones from Lyft’s drivers taken during rides in various regions.
As to the discussed case we used these proprietary street-level images:
near the node node/606255857- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-_tHxCI565-sE4bN6iRdweyo-BBGYqGe/view?usp=sharing - dated 03-05-2022;
near the node node/9570442050- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q_1Oq3blSSSmjkosOStKWOKP3cGDREnn/view?usp=sharing - dated 03-04-2022;
near the node node/1534798861-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gNvXICpqEZO83ZrPPZlWbywfNmQPLSJj/view?usp=sharing - dated 03-04-2022;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XsTkRhV9NmnM2Eq8se4POv6Aa8NbOLRd/view?usp=sharing - dated 03-09-2022.
Best regards, Polina

Hi, wireguy! My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention to this. You are right – it is better to remove the ‘kerb=lowered’ tag from the crossing node as this tag is already added on the side nodes of the crossing. I did it in the OSM changeset (changeset/112955341). According to OSMwiki crossing=* the ‘crossing=marked’ tag is for a generic crossing with no traffic-signals of any type, just road markings. And there is no classic zebra, but the pedestrian crossing is marked as a red zone (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=629255464699850&focus=photo&lat=40.295088910102&lng=-74.655944162045&z=17) here. So I agree with iskra32’s decision about the ‘crossing=marked’ tag.
The extra node has been used in the remodeling of Raven Boulevard from bi-directional to dual carriageway.
I apologize for any inconvenience these edits may have caused. Thank you so much for your input in the OSM!
Best regards, Polina

Hi, Hedaja! My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention to this. The geometry of the intersection 38th Street and Walnut Street has really changed recently. To make edits we use proprietary features created by Lyft, specifically the street-level imagery from Lyft’s drivers taken during rides in various markets. That means our evidence fully complies with the OSM requirements. This data is updated frequently and we try to make edits based on the most recent data.
As to the discussed case, we used the image from 2021-09-14 for this edit, taken from Walnut Street (39°46′14″N, 104°58′17″W) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tPeoHslg863-6kRyl8tlLN_fG1jbpBOB/view?usp=sharing
and image from 2021-09-10 taken from 38th Street (39°46′14″N, 104°58′20″W) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H42NN_90KO3yfkLclayj4lUlghFURJOw/view?usp=sharing
We also have the opportunity to see the frequency of driver’s rides on the roads and can make a decision by indirect signs about to remove secondary highways and tertiary links - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P3pcj5MkAPfJFqayLRD8nuXJAw2TNyx_/view?usp=sharing
Indeed after remodeling the intersection there have been left a few broken turn restrictions. And you are right that these turn restrictions should have been reviewed.
So I removed them in the OSM changeset (changeset/111443775).
I apologize for any inconvenience these edits may have caused. Thank you so much for your input in the OSM!
Best regards, Polina