Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here - Looks great to me! Like you saw, it can be tricky to decide what info should go on buildings and what belongs on the outer area. In this case, since each building has a different house number address, I think what you did is perfect. Thanks for your contributions!

Howdy! Nice job on this switcheroo on the church grounds/buildings. In the past I've typically tried to put most everything on the grounds/landuse, leaving a generic building=church within, but I just had a skim of the wiki for amenity=place_of_worship and it looks like the way you've done it is the more accepted way. I'll try and remember this for when I next touch a church building/grounds. In the past my main goal has just been to avoid amenity appearing on multiple features which is a duplicate afaik.
TL;DR nice job. :)

Ah, gotcha! Sounds like you're more familiar with this than I am! Lol. Well thanks again for the info, and happy mapping!

Hi! Since you requested a review here, I looked over your changes. This is a simple one - no problems! Thanks for your contributions.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no issues! There are a number of other improvements to be made here too, like reclassifying this to a service road rather than a residential road, and a bunch of others (too many to list here, haha.) I made the improvements I could see in the area!

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

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for your contribution. I agree with joel56dt that if they serve Japanese food in general, it should have cuisine=japanese rather than sushi. Other than that suggestion, the rest of your edit looks great!

I went ahead and fixed those duplicate crossings.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great overall! One issue is that you've added duplicate crossing nodes at Broadway/H Street. Also, while I and other mappers are happy to answer questions and review work, you should add data as accurately as possible on the first go and double-checking things yourself, where possible.

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

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great to me! The only possible issue I see is that for the cuisine tag you've changed it from "cuisine=burger" to "cuisine=burger;juice". This is valid, but it means the cafe sells juice and burgers. Since it's vegan, that seemed like a possible mistake to me. But maybe they serve vegan burgers? What do you think? Let me know.
Anyway, thanks for your contributions, and nice job on this update!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good overall! I do see a couple of problems. For tags like material and colour, the values have to follow specific established conventions. If you aren't sure what's allowed, you can click the "i" icon next to the tag field, and link to the wiki. When trying to list multiple values, you have to separate them with a semicolon, e.g. wood;plastic. However, it's generally considered best to avoid multiple listed values whenever possible. So in this case I'd recommend choosing the more "primary" material of a bench (what material would someone be sitting on?) and use that value only.

Other than that, everything else looks good to me! 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 this changeset. Looks like you didn't really change anything, so no problems I guess! Haha.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. This one's an easy change indeed, I see no problems! Thanks for your contribution.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me! I see that you changed the name of the "Saint Ritas School" to Ross Valley Charter. So the school stayed in place, but the name was changed - Is that correct?
Thanks for your contribution!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great to me! One minor tip is that it's considered good practice to connect routable features when possible (roads, paths, etc.) - That means in this case somehow connecting the trail to the road with a crossing or something. Looks like another mapper already came through and did just that!

Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great generally! Here are a couple of tips:
- Since this pizza place is one business of many which share the same building structure, instead of creating an overlapping smaller building square, it's best to make it just a point ("node") within the existing larger building outline.
- In general, it's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM tags. That's because it's easy for computer to shorten words when necessary (Avenue -> Ave) but can be tricky to expand them sometimes.

Anyway, other than that your addition here looks excellent. I went ahead and fixed those issues. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!!

It depends on the system that's consuming OSM data. It's umlikely that neither school bus or delivery drivers use purely OpenStreetMap for their routing data, if at all. The OSM routing app I use will ask me something like "It seems like the only way to access your destination is via a private road. Allow use of it?" - I would think that a delivery driver's navigation would allow something smart like that, but really it just depends on what specifically they're using.

Ultimately nothing you do on OSM (or any other map data for that matter) is going to physically prevent someone from using your driveway as a turnaround. Many people, myself included, will ignore gps instructions when it seems necessary.

Hope that makes sense!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes here. Looks great, no problems! One minor tip is that we can add the informal=yes tag to these paths to show that they aren't maintained (instead they only exist because people walk over them.) I also removed the name tag from them so it's clear they aren't part of the real Lake Overlook Trail.
Also, in the future, for edits like this it's usually good to provide a source for your info. (Local knowledge or in-person observations are excellent, valid sources.)
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Looks great! Nice micro-mapping!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great! One minor tip is that for rectangular features, you can select it and hit "Q" on your keyboard to square it up. That makes it look much nicer (and often you can draw things more sloppily and let the square feature fix it for you!)

Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, a couple suggestions here, if I may - Since the building still exists we'll want to keep some sort of building=* tag. Also, (I had to look this up) - The wiki recommends to avoid having the old name on a shop=vacant feature. osm.wiki/Tag:shop=vacant?uselang=en#How_to_map

I went ahead and fixed those. Let me know if you disagree (I'm open to discussion, of course!) or have questions! Thanks for your contributions.