Please also remember osm.wiki/Change_rollback and assuming good faith and giving people time to reply

This is not an automated or mechanical edit. I am quite familliar with the guidelines as I was one of the people who wrote them.

Oneway is a good example. There are times when oneway=no adds value on a road which would normally not be oneway, such as if there's a bunch of parallel oneway streets and one exception. Adding a oneway=no tag (and possibly a note) can add information for a mapper to know that the exception was intentional.

When I was making my edits I found no cases like that. This is more akin to adding oneway=no to a bunch of residential streets where there's no reason anyone would expect them to be oneway. Or, like adding motor_vehicle=yes to a perfectly ordinary highway=tertiary. We don't do that.

Hello, please don't revert an edit that is under active discussion in changeset/184342283

It's not ambiguous. It's like adding motor_vehicle=yes to a highway=secondary. If it were a highway=track I'd agree with adding it because track varies from region to region. Path doesn't.

Are you aware of any routers that process motor_vehicle and also default to allowing motor_vehicle on highway=path?

If you look at the default access restrictions around the world (osm.wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions) it's fairly universally no motorcycling on paths. None of the US-specific recommendations (osm.wiki/United_States/Trails_Stewardship_Initiative) for trails mention needing to tag no access for motorbikes.

I'm not aware of any motorbike routers which will route over highway=path without access tags indicating it's okay.

Even if something did incorrectly route motorbikes over paths you still wouldn't need the tag in addition to motor_vehicle=no, because a motorbike is a type of motor_vehicle

Hello, this looks like part of an organized edit. Could you provide a link to the organized edit page on the wiki?

I was looking at the changes to 4th street. I know the city has proposed making a bike route along 4th but as yet it's not finalized and nothing is signed

Discussion taking place in @nvk/diary/390496#comment60889

I don't have my 2013 photos on my current server, but my vague recollection is that's because the name was 169th Street. I re-checked with 2015 Mapillary images and the name is not 169th Place NE or 169th Street Northeast.

I considered if they might be omitting NE on the signs but other streets in the area show NE the sign.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=48.150061752225&lng=-122.18300924678&z=17&pKey=179404050760586&focus=photo shows the street sign while https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=48.152548569518&lng=-122.18306840729&z=19.9&pKey=1137831951497884&focus=photo shows how other streets are named with NE

This changeset created a town-sized building. I've gone ahead and reverted it, but did you create any other giant buildings in the area?

Hello,

you've created a giant building with a gibberish name in this changeset. OpenStreetMap is a project used by many, not a sandbox for personal edits. I'm going to go ahead and revert this edit.

Hello, you've removed more specific information from the website in favour of the generic page for the chain. This is generally not a good idea.

If this is a bot edit, can you point to the bot documentation on the OSM wiki and consultation with the local community?

This has resulted in quite a bit of a mess around relation/8453407#map=17/49.84135/-121.43069 and I'm wondering how it's best to fix it.

I've reverted this because they've not yet renamed the park as of last Monday.

I drove by here, and these aren't living streets. Living streets seldom exist in Canada and I'm not aware of any in BC.

Hello,
I've tried to contact the organiser of this organised edit at osm.maps.ext@swiggy.in, but the email bounces. Part of the organised edit guidelines is being able to contact someone about them, what should I use for contact information?

When I drove by on the 5th, the road was still named Colony Farm Road

It also mentions Tagging these as highway=living_street has been controversial because pedestrian-safe speed limits are not part of the initiative. The roads I looked at had speed limits of 20 mph or above, far above walking speed.

Hi,
you changed some ways like way/357558737 to be tagged as a highway=living_street.

highway=living_street as a concept does not normally exist in the US or Canada. They're closer to a highway=pedestrian that allows cars to move alongside pedestrians than a residential or service road.

I had a look at the bing street-side imagery here and although a sign mentions children, it's not a pedestrian priority area.

I've fixed up the tagging here

Hi,
you set a few ways to highway=living_street. Living streets are a concept, that with a couple of rare exceptions, do not exist in the US. I've gone ahead and changed these, but I wanted you to be aware for future.