please review:
way 319845369 has invalid
tag highway=footway;path
and also other tags have combined
values. Is this tunnel really part of a cycle
way?

please review:
way 314279561 and way 314279559
seem not to be connected, but OSM shows a connection at node 3204479902.
way 314279559 has invalid tag
highway=unclassified;track

please review:
way 314253452 has now invalid tag
highway=unclassified;track

thanks, did you also check the lanes value?

Hi,
I fear you got me wrong.
building=apartments should be used
for buildings only, not for areas. I think
landuse=residential was perfect, but the shape of that area was strange.
I've changed it with
osm.org/changeset/34592435
(It still has the small rectangle in the lower left corner, as it seems these buildings are different)

please review:
way 198553702 now has the invalid tag
highway=unclassified;track
I think it changes at node 2086756742,
maybe also the maxspeed value changes
here?

please review:
way 104366705 (Gregory Road)
still has the fixme=name tag
and now has an invalid
highway=unclassified;track
tag

the part was in an area where Bing shows
no hires pictures, so I tried to find it in
Google earth. I think that is allowed?

yes, sorry, I did not notice that this changeset has such a large bbox,
and I don't remember the exact place anymore nor how I got there :-(

please review:
I assume the relation should get the tag
colour=red instead of many highways in this area?
Also, way 78188590
has now the invalid tag
highway=unclassified;track

please review, the relation 4620474
has an invalid highway tag;
highway=pedestrian;residential
I am not sure why you created this mp-relation ?
I assume the area in the north is simply
"amenity=parking parking=surface", and
the way 329840758 should be tagged
as highway=residential; junction=roundabout

please review,
way 372338082 looks as it is going to nowhere and is is going back and force

please review,
type is missing, way 306648963 is not closed and maybe should be connected with other way 306642530 ?

danke Dir!
JOSM meint übrigens, das sport=golf
falsch ist, obwohl im wiki
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Details_within_a_golf_course
nur "implies golf=sport" steht.
Unnötig also, aber falsch?

see osm.org/way/250710591
I wonder why that small area in the south is not landuse=residential.
I found this because OSM Inspector
marks it as an error, see
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/

please review way 250710591
Why is the small square in the south
left out ?

please review, what is this?

Google earth shows this
junction much closer to the city

way 372076234 looks wrong, pictures
that I can find show either no cycleway
on this side of the road or one that
runs next to the primary road and
crosses below it

this produced lots of wrong addr:interpolation ways,
e.g.
way 234360884,way 234363130
should probably be combined or
each one neads an additional addr:housenumber node

Also a lot of street names are spelled differently (lower case/upper case)