Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Re: removal of these unofficial trails, were you able to check them in person? Just because something doesn't appear on some other map doesn't mean it's necessarily non-existent in reality. They might still be there and simply need an informal=yes tag.
Let me know what you think. And thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just want to say thanks for your contributions to the map. Everything's lookin great!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes. Everything looks great to me overall! One minor issue is that there were some "almost-connections". If someone could continue from one path to another, or from a path to a road, etc., you should connect the lines so that they share a node. That way routing software knows that it's possible to continue through that junction. Does that make sense? Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!!

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

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great to me, no problems I can see! Thanks for your contributions.

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no complaints from me! Thanks for your contribution.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great! In-person observations are an excellent source for OSM edits. Thanks for your contribution!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great overall! The only issue I see is that individual land parcels are generally out of scope of OSM. Therefore, in this case, I recommend making sure the address and outline of the house is correct without mapping the outer area of your land. As you've done it, it looks like there's a huge building taking up the whole area since it's tagged building=yes still. :)
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 recent changes here. Looks great overall! One suggestion is that in OSM, we generally discourage "backyard mapping". That is, mapping micro-details that aren't accessible to the public (like adding benches, trees, etc. in one's backyard). In general, I suggest only adding names to buildings where it might be useful to others.
Let me know if that makes sense. Thanks for your contributions!

Looks great! Nice.

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! One suggestion is that since there's no northbound access to 273, and since 273 is represented by 2 separate ways, we can just remove the NB connecting piece altogether. I went ahead and did that.
Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great! The only suggestion I have is to add a tag describing the category of this feature. Looks like another mapper (jmarchon) came through and added healthcare=psychotherapist.

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. Looks great! The only issue I saw is that Ash Springs Apartments outer boundary area was tagged with building=apartments, which means that the entire area is one big building. (I went ahead and fixed that.)
Other than that, everything looks super. 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 change here. Looks great! Thanks for providing a source/explanation. If you feel confident enough, you could also add the new business that replaced it. (But that's not required, of course.)
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contribution to the map!

More info on the OSM Wiki: osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me! I understand natural=scrub to generally mean "Shrubby plants, maybe some wild grasses, and trees whose growth is stunted." Something like this: http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/243/1/b/scrubland_stock_2_by_humblebeez-d2xp3an.jpg

However, the definitions aren't really strict and it can depend on the context, unfortunately. If not scrub here, perhaps natural=wood would be the next best thing.

Let me know what you think. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your addition here. Looks great to me! For your business to show up, it needs to be added as a feature. If you haven't already, I recommend going through the tutorial for editing online. Or if you prefer, you can provide the details of your business here or in a note and I can just add it for you.
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. In this case, I think the service road should still be connected, even if it isn't accessible by the public. I say that because the roads do still connect. Instead of disconnecting it, I'd say we should add access tags to the gate and/or service road. Something like access=private or similar. Hopefully that makes sense. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great, no complaints. Thanks for your contribution!

Gotcha, cool. I added a bridge tag to the McClintock ones to match the road, and merged and extended some nearby.