Are these bike paths, or bike lanes? I.e., is there any kind of physical separation from the roadway beyond paint?

Please don't put curb nodes (lowered or raised) in the middle of sidewalks, only put them where a single sidewalk and crossing meet. Otherwise, navigation apps will interpret it as curb in the sidewalk. (Unless, of course, there really is a curb in the middle of the sidewalk e.g. the visually impaired need to know to navigate around.)

Please don't tag things as cycleways simply because bicycles can use it. E.g., a driveway is not a cycleway, even if using it is required to access cycle routes.

Resolves osm.org/note/4532597

I've already changed it in the couple places it happened, but just for future reference: it's rarely right for there to be a curb where two sidewalks intersect, since it shows on navigation systems for the visually impaired or wheelchair users that they have to go down and up the curb/ramp just to get between the two adjacent sidewalks. That's why you'll see little sidewalk nubs sticking out on the corners of intersections, so that the curb/ramp only applies to where the sidewalk meets the crossing.

Resolves the following notes:

osm.org/note/4475980
osm.org/note/4476004
osm.org/note/4490785
osm.org/note/4490787
osm.org/note/4490788

resolves osm.org/note/4513656

hopefully resolves osm.org/note/4498173

resolves osm.org/note/4491733

resolves osm.org/note/4406071

resolves osm.org/note/4378861

resolves osm.org/note/4363564

resolves osm.org/note/4332211

What did you mean by the fixmes added here?

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.