Looking at other buildings downtown, I think the previous values are correct. This area is just for the podium. The building part for the tower is already tagged separately.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156938685

Please consider holding these changes until service changes occur. This bus is still in service for another week.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156192868

These changesets risk confusion because the routes are still in service for another two weeks
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156074916

The start_date date tags have useful information, so I would not remove those. opening_date tags can be rolled over into start_date now that the line is open
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156010502

Thanks for sprucing this! In case you are planning more edits to it: I've noticed that the network tag is used inconsistently across the system.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/155951986

Thanks for fixing up this route!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150020087

I haven't found any source showing the northern path above Drumheller being part of the old Rainier Vista NE (which itself stopped appear on the parcel viewer, probably after it was erased by new landscaping ~2008-2018). Here's the one last UW map I can find which has a RV NE label:
https://depts.washington.edu/ceogis/Public/Accessibility/Map/

Can you share what you based the path name on?

Many mappers in the area leave off the state tag, as buildings are well within the administrative boundary. To my knowledge, it doesn't cause problems to add it, but it also has no benefit.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/146992101

Unfortunately OSM only allows binary feedback. To clarify the review: the highway=service tag is the correct designation for a private alley. The names are a bit confusing (highway is used for almost all vehicle roads). Please take a look at the documentation to help make sense of the tags:
osm.wiki/Key:highway

If you've spotted an error but aren't sure how to fix it, consider leaving a note instead: osm.wiki/Notes

This can signal experienced mappers to help.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145638013

Yes, that's correct. However, the foot=no tag indicates that it is illegal for pedestrians to walk on this path. It is used when there is signage prohibiting pedestrian access, which does not appear to be the case here.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145632977

Thanks for contributing to OSM. You've named a building after a shop that appears to occupy part of the ground floor. Please add the name to appropriate address node, instead of to the apartment building area.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145629142

Hello and thanks for contributing to OSM. It looks like you're trying to mark this street as service road. You've marked it as private though, which does not appear to be the case:
"Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted." osm.wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145632900

Hello and thanks for contributing to OSM. foot=no is used the denote that there is no legal access for pedestrians, which does not appear to be the case here. It looks like you may have been trying to tag a driveway. Take a look at similar case in Wallingford: w408045499
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145632977

Thank you for the help!