How did you map this? In the future, a source tag would be useful (either on the edit or the way). Also, does this need an informal=yes tag?

A couple things:
- You should pretty much never have a multipolygon with one member. If it can be represented as a single way, then the tags should be on that (i.e., the normal case for mapping objects).
- What you have mapped as grassland I think is actually unmaintained brownfield? It's not owned by the city or part of the park, unless it's changed since I was last there.
- The park was a multipolygon because it is in fact two disjoint areas, with two different posted addresses and everything. Unless that "grassland" is indeed part of the park now, but even then, you have to cross the Ion tracks and Old Albert Street to get to the trails on the other half.

Generally, I would recommend avoiding making major changes like this without a ground survey first. Is the situation on the ground different now, or should we change this back?

reverted in changeset #87048704

landuse=grass is intended for stretches of grass that are used as (decorative) grass, i.e., they're not intended to be used by people for anything. If there's any sports pitch, benches, etc. in it, then it should be mapped as a park or recreation_ground instead. Parks in OSM don't map the things we would typically call parks here, they map almost any semi-natural area (mowed lawns, decorative trees, etc.). Unlike other landcover tags, parks don't need to be a multipolygon to include most other landcover features, like pitches; they're expected to overlap. You can see more on the wiki:

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse=grass
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

I know it's unusual for a changeset of this age, but I'm thinking of reverting this, since I've encountered it about a dozen times now when noticing that a way is tagged as being paved with asphalt when it's not. The only way I'm noticing these mistakes is happenstance edits of places I'm surveying/have local knowledge of; who knows how many are still left wrongly tagged. Did you do any checking of this, or was it an automated edit?

yeah I've noticed, thanks for the edits :)

No, just meant that they're for representing things that are the same object, and the basins look independent to me (i.e., they could have different tags, like different seasonality, elevations, names, etc.). There's also a general rule of thumb to not use relations (of any kind) if there's a simple way to go without one, since newer mappers tend to get confused by them.

Why tag the basins as a multipolygon?

Given that that building was only added a couple months ago, it seems unlikely that it's gone already. Do you have local knowledge of the area?

This exact bakery was added to the map 20 minutes before you made this edit. Where are you and Hanna Markovich getting this data from, and how are you deciding where to add it?

No worries, like I said the edits so far look good to me. Just noticed the Esri tag in the edit and thought I'd mention it.

Thanks for the edits. :) So far it all looks good, but as a word of caution, Esri imagery is years out of date in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and there's been a lot of buildings torn down for new apartment and condo towers in that time. A sanity check with Bing imagery helps, particularly if you're armchair mapping.

I removed a bunch of landuse=commercial tags here, as government facilities don't fit under that tagging, and there's no obvious replacement yet

please don't add duplicate nodes for elements already tagged as ways (e.g., if a building has an address, you do not also need an address node)

What's going on with the service road you modified here? Clearly this isn't what you intended, but is there something you were trying to do?

Good catch, that should be the Gino's pizza at https://ginospizza.ca/ (which, ironically enough, is a larger franchise, but no Wikipedia or Wikidata). I'll try to remember to fix it tomorrow, or you can fix it before, whichever.

Thanks for the edit. :)
For future reference, these should just be tagged as building=house. Residential areas would cover basically the entire block (it's roughly akin to zoning). Side tip, if you press "q" with a building selected, it will turn the corners into right angles, which can make things look a little cleaner. I went ahead and did that for these.

Just as a heads-up, this changeset added some weird bugs to paths on the UW campus (now fixed). Not sure what exactly went wrong, but if you do, just keep an eye out in the future. One way to do that is to look at the warnings iD generates, you'll get a yellow warning on the right under "issues" if you introduce problems like these.

Some of these are very obviously not real. I'm going to revert all your edits. If this was a mistake, please let me know, otherwise I'll have to report for vandalism.

Are you sure these actually exist? There's no sign of them on aerial imagery.