please review:
I've changed
osm.org/way/361744921
from highway=residential_link to tertiary_link as it connects a tertiary road with a residential.
I am not sure why
osm.org/way/361745007 (Tenner Road)
is tagged as residential while the
longer part of Tenner Road is tertiary?
Neither Tenner Road nor Ninninup Road
have a ref=* tag.
I am not a local, maybe you know these details?

please review:
You use the undocumented tag
highway=residential_link for four ways
which connect a highway=service with a
highway=residential , e.g.
osm.org/way/354648459
This is very unusual. I was about to change the tags from residential_link to service, but
osm.org/way/354626720
looks more like a residential road
than a service way to a parking space.

please review:
I've changed the roundabouts
osm.org/way/352135441
and osm.org/way/352135448
from highway=residential_link to
tertiary because
Avenida de Villanueva de Córdoba
osm.org/way/352135447
is a tertiary road.
I am not sure why only the southern lane is tertiary while the nothern one is tagged residential (Bing is obviously out-aged)
Also osm.org/way/153957797 is probably tertiary.

:-)
My first thought when I found this typo
was that highway=memorial is another
tag for something like highway=disused.

por favor contactar
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co
para ayudar

no idea?

please review: the tag
highway=path;footway
is invalid.
osm.org/way/283162433

bitte prüfen:
Beim mergen ist was schiefgegangen:
highway=track;service
surface=gravel;paved
Habe leider keine Ortskenntnis.

reg. the name: I am not a local, so I can't say. The original tags said Norris Street
for the longer part of the current way.
The tiger tags still show both variants, so yes, please add a note and I'd try to contact Richard , the initial mapper:
osm.org/user/Richard

please review the junction near
osm.org/node/1373874109
I am not a local, and maybe Bing is out-aged here, but
1) I see no direct way like that marked by
osm.org/way/123114934
2) The link roads should be tagged
highway=secondary_link, not residential_link
3) Also the two link roads
near osm.org/node/1373874107 seem to be
highway=secondary_link, not primary_link
(guess that was just overseen when the way osm.org/way/123103585 was changed from primary to secondary

please review ways
osm.org/way/320759609
and
osm.org/way/320759628
If you call those links, I think they should be tagged primary_link, not residential_link. On Bing they also look like oneways.

please review:
I've changed the tag highway=residential_link
to tertiary_link:
osm.org/changeset/35210851
Not sure why you selected residential_link ?

please review:
I've changed highway=residential_link
to
highway=service
service=parking_aisle
osm.org/changeset/35210733
See also
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice

OK. Thanks for the feedback!

thanks for the quick feedback :-)

well, sorry for my uncommented change.
This "definition" of a *_link is very new to me,
it sounds reasonable, but I wonder why
the wiki documents only *_links for major road types. You probably noted the discussion about my changes:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Undiscussed-edits-removing-lesser-used-highway-tags-tp5859298.html
It would be great to have a few more comments on this question.

bitte prüfen:
4 Wege sind wohl versehentlich als
highway=turning_circle getaggt, scheinen aber Gebäudeteile zu sein:
osm.org/way/378961398
Was war da gemeint?

please note:
I've changed three ways which were tagged
highway=driveway
to the well documented
highway=service
service=driveway
osm.org/changeset/35194147
See also
osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice

please review:
osm.org/way/362625341
what does
highway=Jana Onufrego Zagłoby mean?
I assume you wanted to change the name tag?

please review:
The tag highway=stop_position is rarely used in OSM. Does it really fix something?