It's all good, welcome aboard! Don't take this as being overly critical, my intention is to be constructive. And also save a little work on maintenance down the line.

Really looks like this could have been a good edit with better attention paid to overlaps, alignment and geometry.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104910495

http://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2003-04%20COMMITTEE%20SUBS/scs/sb350%20cs.pdf
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/104912920

highway=construction implies access=no. I usually don't (and generally don't consider it best practice) to retag access=no, as highway=construction, as it's generally tagged and consumed already, already overrides as not being accessible. This also makes reversibility easier, since all you have to do is change construction=* to highway=* after selecting what's now open and remove the opening_date without having to worry about other keys. I would generally suggest the best practice on highway=construction is set the access to what it will be once it opens. This gets especially handy in more complex access situations (such as around weigh stations and emergency crossovers) that are closed for construction.

Nice catch, I thought it was a school based on top down profile and position relative to a strip-park with a MUP, which tends to be the prime nonmotorized connection to schools.

Yes, that sounds fine. Not specific to this change but based on the pattern visible, I think duplicating the ref=* in the name=* in general is not a great way of handling route numbers in general.

I'm fairly sure OK 82A was retired in 2018, and was contained entirely within Langley, connecting OK 82 to OK 28, so I'm not super into the accuracy of this change.

Second, name=* is only the name. So even if this was State Highway 82A, then it would be ref=OK 82A, and if it didn't have a name and only a number like that, then it'd be noname=yes instead of name=State Highway 82A.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102588824

Looks like you added it yourself. Be aware that advertising copy isn't allowed in OSM.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102489252

landuse=residential is good for invididual lots or contiguous lots, but not for entire subdivisions.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102353631

Not bad, but areas go to the edge of the area, not attached to the roadway centerlines.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102350093

This almost certainly needs to be completely redone. Could I get evidence that these hundreds of buildings, none of which have any relation to what appears on the bing imagery, is even remotely possible to be something other than a house?

Correct tagging and good drawing is pretty important.

I feel this, but I'd have waited for authorities to have given up first.

I don't think this is a permanent enough fixture to qualify to be an object in OSM.

No physical separation here, it's just a high radius corner.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101683229

This seems rather inventive to have a graduated curve at a T intersection.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101683707

name=* is only the name, it is not ref=*. osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101683940

For the landuse, I'd probably go "landuse=retail" and remove the name, since it's no longer a Conoco.

That sounds about right!

I forget the object, but if there was a relation I missed, that would make sense.

Does this road no longer go through?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101209894