The roads you changed to "residential" should have been left as "unclassified". The term might be slightly misleading if you don't look at the documentation, it doesn't mean "unknown", it's for minor roads that serve non-residential locations. osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

Oh, we should also turn it into a normal way instead of a multipolygon, since the bridges attached the annex, leaving only one member.

Back when I originally mapped this, the 3D building documentation said to only map the footprint, not the whole building outline. This made sense, because with the non-footprint portion, it's impossible to accurately map what level it is in relation to the other paths (e.g., iD now gives a bunch of warnings about intersecting ways). If best-practice has changed, that's fine, though we should at least remove the level=0 tag from the building, since that's no longer really accurate.

Thanks for the edit! If you're wondering why the island didn't show up on the map, it's because it was still surrounded by water. Basically, for the map to "see" the island, there has to be a chunk of missing water mapped, and we do that by mapping the water as a multipolygon: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

While they're ultimately not *that* hard (they're basically just lists of "inner" and "outer" OSM elements that make a shape), they're definitely trickier than most parts of OSM, so if you'd rather keep editing for now without learning about them yet, you'll be fine. I already fixed it here (and changed it to an islet, which is technically what you're supposed to use for small islands like this, though that's also not a big deal). If you would like to learn about it, you can check out that wiki page, and the edit here as an example: osm.org/changeset/115618822#map=18/43.50948/-80.49288

Thanks for the edits! So a couple notes for the future:
- It's preferred if you add a source tag to your edits (in the default editor, iD, that's "Add field"->"sources" when you're saving). It's not big deal if you forget, but it helps things like figuring out how precise the newly mapped features are, and ensuring there's no copyright issues.
- It's a good idea to try to keep the area your editing on the smaller side (roughly the size of a city or smaller, though larger edits are sometimes justified, especially in rural areas). This makes it easier to check out what you changed, and also makes it so the bounding box doesn't span large areas that weren't touched in the History tab. Similar to forgetting sources though, it's not a huge deal if it happens.

Thanks for the edits! For future reference, it's preferred if you add a source tag to your edits (in the default editor, iD, that's "Add field"->"sources" when you're saving). It's not big deal if you forget, but it helps things like figuring out how precise the newly mapped features are, and ensuring there's no copyright issues.

For future reference, if you can, try to avoid merging two crossing ways with two sidewalk ways like this. When all four meet in a single node, it makes it impossible to accurately map curbs (e.g., via StreetComplete), which is important for wheelchairs and visually impaired users.

This service road doesn't exist -- the road is not connected to the sidewalk there (e.g., a bicyclist who tried to turn from Ottawa Street onto the trail there would have a bad day). Routes sometimes have discontinuities; this isn't a flaw in the route, it's just bad urban planning.

Hello! I'll respond to this in detail in a private message, since the notifications work better and this is a more general than the edit here.

iD has warnings when you've done something that's unlikely to be correct, please keep an eye out for those on the right side. Also, just because you can drive a golf cart on something doesn't make it a golf cart path, or a service road (service roads are for highways full-sized motor vehicles can drive on, see the wiki for more info).

Like I mentioned on another one of your edits, you can remove tags from nodes without removing the nodes themselves. When you removed one of the crossings, you deleted one of the only two nodes on Melanie Place, which, since a way requires at least two nodes to exist, deleted the street. I went ahead and restored it (without the crossing) in this changeset: osm.org/changeset/107464213

You created a couple very small roads without names in this edit, where they should have been the existing streets. Not sure how it happened, but some possibly helpful info: you can delete tags from nodes without deleting the nodes themselves, and you can add a node to an existing way (either by double clicking where you want the node, or using the node tool at the top and clicking on an existing way). I've fixed the roads in question by combining them with the existing roads.

I agree that edits should ideally be kept more local than this, but it is only fair to point out that all these edits were in one country (Russia), and the only reason the bounding box for the edit is global is that it spans the 180th meridian (specifically, this way is on the other side of it from where most of Russia is: osm.org/way/129096772 ).

No worries, it was a very minor issue. Thanks for responding. :)

Thanks for the addition! So you connected the path to the bike stile, which from a routing perspective, means a bicyclist would have to go through the stile regardless of which of the 3 directions they were coming from/going to. I'm guessing this isn't actually the layout, but I don't know what is: does the new path connect to the existing path, or the road? Thanks!

If you don't mind me asking, where are you getting all these addresses from? The postcodes in particular are usually pretty hard to find, and Canada Post is pretty litigious against people/orgs who import them from their DBs or derivatives.

Is it a osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dnesting_site ?

I reverted this, 95032086, and 95032218 in changeset 95075720, then applied the intended change in changeset 95075828. It's a bit weird, but when a business closes, you usually don't want to delete the features associated with it. If you do that, you remove all information tagged with it that stays relevant, even if the business is closed (things like addresses, whether it's wheelchair accessible, or the existence of the building itself). The right thing to do is to either delete the specific tags on that feature that are now incorrect (like the name and type of business), or to use one of the lifecycle prefixes, like disused:
osm.wiki/Key:disused:

I did the latter in this case, since it provides hints to other/future local mappers that, e.g., "this is the building Chainsaw used to be in", which can be useful on its own, but also makes it so that it doesn't accidentally get added back by someone who doesn't know it closed.

Neat, thanks! :)

The home hardware was built as a sports hall?