Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good to me! In my mind, there is some ambiguity between "no" and "private" for access-type tags, but I think "no" makes sense here. Thanks for your contribution!

I hate to perform changeset necromancy here, but do you happen to remember what the situation with the Malad River waterfalls here is? Looking at the satellite they kind of just seem to me like clumps of debris in the river, or perhaps a little weir or beaver dam.

In OSMcha you can filter limit the maximum bbox size. When reviewing my local area, I have it capped at 20x the size of my area of interest.

Well put, Silversurfer. To add a little bit, I think the main reason people comment on huge changesets is because if you go to your area on osm.org and click history, depending on the activity in the area, many or even all of those changesets can be accidental world-spanning bounding boxes like this one. I'm of the opinion that using osm.org website directly is a bad way to monitor an area or review others' changes, but it definitely is the most obvious way.
Anyway, thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks good to me. Only thing I'd ask is whether this road should be tagged highway=track instead of highway=unclassified. My test for that is whether it's a maintained road. Is it occasionally graded or anything, or does it only exist because of vehicles driving over it?
Anyway, thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Things generally look good, but there are a few issues I noticed. You've added and removed some addresses in a strange way: osm.org/node/11444150918
and some buildings are not real: osm.org/way/1248808221#map=19/33.50123/-112.10583

RapID makes it easy to import stuff but you shouldn't blindly do so. Mappers still have to review every change. Also, please be more specific in your changeset comment. Here is some more info: osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Nice job fixing the incorrect oneway. Regarding turning left onto Hahns Peak Drive, I looked at the data and don't see anything that might prevent turning to go south. Can you give more info on the navigation system you're using? Here's a test using the routing engine OSRM, everything looks ok to me: osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=40.40905%2C-105.00973%3B40.40739%2C-105.01861#map=17/40.40858/-105.01527

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks great, no problems! Thanks for your contribution!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. As far as I can tell, everything looks good - no complaints from me! Thanks for your contributions!

Oh, looking into it some more it appears that most trunk roads in the area also have hgv=designated. So I think we're good! Thanks again!

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. I think this should be good, but my only concern is that routing engines for non-HGV travellers will discourage or avoid routing along here. But I'm not sure about that. (I got burned a while ago when a big section of I-15 was accidentally marked HOV-only and I was routed around it.)
Also, is it just this one little section that's HGV designated, or is more of Redwood Road marked as such?

Can any other mappers comment on the routing thing?

That being said, I'm guessing Carto (the map at OpenStreetMap.org) may not render that tag. So if you still want to keep them on name then go for it. Like I said, the navigation scenario is a fairly minor downside.

Wow, I've somehow made it this far without knowing about ref_name! That seems like the perfect key for those.

Hmm, that's a thinker. I'm sure if you asked more mappers you'd get some that agree and some that disagree. I think my opinion is still that the name tag still should not be there. But it could go either way. Worst case scenario, someone types in one of these locations, accidentally selects the ballot box, and navigates to that instead. Which really wouldn't be bad much at all since they'd be right there anyway. For that reason, I think this is a pretty low-stakes question either way, so as the (I assume) local mapper you have the final say! Thanks again!

(Also, if anyone else is reading this, please do let us know your thoughts.)

Interesting questions. I'm not too experienced in tagging in this situation, but here are a couple thoughts from me:
- If you have accurate info, I'd suggest using drive_through={no, yes, only}. Looks like all three are used regularly: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drive_through#values
- I would consider leaving out the name= on most of these. (Test: "Is this ballot box itself named Amboy Middle School?")
- I'd say amenity=polling_station, polling_station=ballot_box is the best way to represent these, so good job on that!
Just my thoughts. Thanks for your contributions!

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!

Is this really a residential road? It looks like a driveway to me. But I could be wrong.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good, the only issue I see is that an amenity feature like this shouldn't be represented by a corner of a building. It's best to just place the node inside the building (not touching the edge). I'll go ahead and fix that. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contribution!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks good to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions!