While agreed, this "road" should not be used for navigation, there seems to be a track road here. Perhaps it should be marked as an "unmaintained track road" instead of outright deleting it?

Is it a private road on private property but could be used in an emergency? May be better to tag as a private road.

Hey, I wonder you could convert this to a "T" type intersection. Looking at a lot of style guides it seems that drawing curved lanes through intersections for individual lanes isn't suggested, plus it makes maintaining turn restrictions a hassle (which was what I was trying to fix). Though this is not exactly the same case, https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/71825/traffic_light-complex-intersection is one way to look at things. Just wondering what your ideas were?

Hey, I've been trying to correct turn restrictions that have fewer than 3 members. I noticed in this changeset there was a new relation osm.org/relation/10060547 placed that has only 1 member. Just wondering what the intent was if you remember?

"Cpnsolate" appears to be misspelled but what are the references for this building?

Hi, Welcome to OSM. I'm not exactly a reviewer (I don't even know how the review process works) but noticed your edits while browsing the area, and thanks for updating Timnath Reservoir Outlet! I know I was editing around here recently and completely missed the fact it was routed over roads after the massive construction project, yikes! Thanks for correcting this!

Anyway I suspect an official reviewer would take a rigorous compare of before and after, and I'm only doing this on a cursory visual inspection, I noticed one thing that you could add are bridges and/or culverts along the new canal. In iD, you can draw a line(way) between the cutouts you left and mark it as the canal. Then you can go into the tags for "structure" and click on "tunnel". This will create a culvert that will now link two pieces of waterway. Name the new line the same as the rest of the line and we now have a continuous waterway!

Hope this adds a bit to your tips and tricks to build a better map, and once again welcome to OSM!

Hi, I'm confused, here's a broken version 1 turn restriction missing to/from members on apparently bicycle paths, was this intentional to make sure bicycle traffic does not make turns?
osm.org/relation/9736494

Hi, I was going through broken TRs and was trying to make sense of osm.org/relation/9538272 - Looking at the pavement, it seems that the two cross roads monteith and casey aren't really straight connected to each other. As I am not local I don't know if this is latest, so I can't fix this. Does this intersection now match imagery, and is this Only Right Turn specific to casey WB turning onto old cullowhee -- and should there also be a no-straight-on turn restriction from monteith to casey?

Hi, I was almost tempted to rip up a lot of your edits here but figured I should ask first. I was working through broken turn restrictions and noticed that you had a few in this section of the road where no u-turn turn restrictions were missing segments of roads. I started to fix them but got distracted by the number of turn restrictions necessary to clarify all the intersections now visible. What I was about to do to simplify this was to remove all the right turn ramps and this would save a lot of turn restriction work. Would lose a little detail but at least in my opinion it doesn't lose much functional detail. What do you think?

There were also two left turn ramps that have the wrong oneway direction that must be fixed, will also note that here.

Any additional comments or ideas about this?

I don't quite understand these two relations:

osm.org/relation/10042200 (broken no u-turn)

osm.org/relation/10042201 (only u-turn)

Looking at streetview these shouldn't be there... since you have version 1, curious what you know about these turn restrictions?

I may delete these TRs in a bit if I don't hear back... Thanks.

I'm not sure of some of these edits, looks suspicious.

Uh wow... Looks like this edit is messed up, should we request a revert on this?

Okay, made some changes in changeset #83831641 - Kind of tough to categorize this natural area - as far as I know there's nothing special about this land other than a creek goes through it. Pretty much just leaving it open and letting people walk through it on the designated paths (i.e. no camping, etc.) but mainly letting it be a gap to prevent more urban sprawl / development.

This is a bit different than Long View Farm Open Space to the south. This is yet a different category, and it too needs to be worked on...

Hmm... Kind of a tough call. With it marked type=boundary instead of multipolygon it no longer seems to recognize it as two areas and just as a boundary. I'm not sure what these should be considered as - like a city boundary or a polygon like landuse?

Indeed it seems having both leisure= and landuse=recreation does seem redundant, but it is possible for protected area to have leisure prohibited, and that numerical denotation osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area seems really confusing, ugh. Feel free to change it, I was hoping to change as little as possible from the previous configuration hence the original tagging remained.

I'm not sure if way 768453082 is a public road, will people be angry if general public use it as a shortcut between Hwy13 to Hwy15?

Thanks, one more comment - you might also want to mark the allowed access tag to disallow vehicles but allow bicycles, horses, and pedestrians since these modes of transportation are narrow enough to squeeze in between.

Agreed there is a path from Summit View Drive to Timberline Road, I will be willing to bet this owner will not be happy people are driving through their yard. Suggest this passthrough be broken up to proactively prevent people from driving through this pathway.

While I agree there is a way to walk through on way 779877602, this does not appear to be a road that connects the two in the two houses' yards and should not be connected in this way.

There appears to be a bollard blocking access from Hearthfire Drive to the new road addition, has this been removed recently? I can see in mapbox imagery, maxar has some hints of them which I'm not sure if AI can detect, and the other imagery is too fuzzy to tell. Also this does not appear to be paved and should be marked as such.

I'm not local but perhaps you are. Just wondering if you knew which end of Thunderbird Boulevard are you not allowed to make a U-turn (east or west end or both)? The no u-turn restriction 9926202 is not valid until you select the 'via' member for the relation - the east or west end.

Yeah there are a lot of them around, unfortunately I'm not affiliated (nor really want to be affiliated) with any other organizations. Would be nice to have a shared authentication that all OSM users can use directly. The comments field works but quickly devolves off topic such as what I just wrote...sorry again...