Well that's a coincidence, the City of Kitchener actually finally got back to me, and state their license is compatible.

No worries, I think what's considered the Walter Bean trail is common enough local knowledge that it's not worth reverting.

Unfortunately, each city, the region, and the Grand River Conservation Authority all used their own independently modified version of the OGL (as in, it's not even just that they all decided to use one modified version of the actual OGL, they didn't even make the same changes to it). The changes are small enough that I suspect each license would be fine, but as a non-lawyer, I can't really judge, and the LWG doesn't want to go through each municipality in Canada that decided their lawyers in particular need to make some edits. I (and at least one other local) have tried reaching out to them multiple times over many years, and as recently as two weeks ago, but have never gotten an answer from any of them.

You can't use the region's data, they haven't provided a waiver and their license hasn't been approved. Can you list what in particular was sourced from that? Otherwise we'll have to revert the whole changeset.

resolves osm.org/note/4314686

The point is that you cannot copy data from other sources if you have not been given permission to do so. If you know a hotel exists because you personally have been there, or because you can see it from properly licensed imagery, or because it's in a properly licensed database, then you can add it, but if you are finding hotels by searching a website that did not give you permission to use the search results for OSM, that is not allowed (and makes mapping harder for everyone else).

See the wiki: osm.wiki/Copyright#Proprietary_data

Just as importantly, if the DWG reverts your edits, and you have not gotten permission from them to undo that revert, you cannot just decide they were wrong and do it anyway. That's a good way to get banned.

You detached the buildings, but left them overlapping. Do the buildings abut each other? Then they do indeed need to attach on the map. Do they have a gap between them? Then they need to be moved to show that.

This changeset broke the multipolygon for Victoria Park Lake. Please try to do fewer things in each changeset, it make it easier to notice these sorts of things.

You deleted the Breithaupt Park reserve. Was this an accident, or is there some sort of misunderstanding? Restored in osm.org/changeset/152427393

Thanks for the edits! Going forward, it's helpful if you provide a changeset summary, to help other editors in the area get a quick idea of what's going on.

Resloves osm.org/note/4238133

Resolves osm.org/note/4232763

nit: I should have cited Esri World Imagery for this edit as well (Bing doesn't have the newer inner buildings)

Resolves osm.org/note/4210564

You changed this stretch of the road from a residential road to a motorway (i.e., a freeway). I switched it back, but was this just a misclick, or was there something you were trying to change aside from the speed limit?

resolves osm.org/note/4187606

How were you able to tell the address is on Olympic and not Pattandon?

No worries, thanks for the edits!

Fair enough, I was probably looking in the wrong place. Thanks for the quick reply. :)

You tagged a width as "a", I'm guessing that's a typo:
osm.org/way/1117294685

It looks like you tagged a bunch of regular paths as crossings (cycleway=crossing). Crossings are for street crossings, not general paths. I went ahead and fixed it.