Just FYI, you could have changed the bi-directional roads to dual carriageways by splitting the ways at the point where the road divides and adjusting the section of the road on the dual carriageway to one of the carriageways, instead of splitting the way and then deleting the section of the road on the carriageway and drawing new roads on the carriageways. By splitting the existing ways and adjusting the section of road on the dual carriageway to one of the carriageways instead of deleting it, you help preserve the history on OSM. This also helps preserve the original nodes. So for this instance, it would have been better to split the roads at the point where the road divides and adjust the section of roads on the dual carriageways to one of the carriageways, then changing its lane count and tagging it as one way going in the correct direction of the road on the ground, preserving the editing history of the original nodes from the roads. Then drawing the new roads on the other carriageways and adding its lane count and tagging it as one-way going in the correct direction of the actual one-way restriction.

Here are a couple of my changesets that changed bi-directional roads to dual carriageways without deleting any existing roads or nodes, preserving the editing history of the original nodes:
changeset/133277884
changeset/173780503 (for this changeset, I actually copied and pasted a section of an existing road to one of the road carriageways, and then adjusted the existing road to the other carriageway.)

What is the source for the deletion of this building passage? I'm guessing this building passage through Pritchard Hall is still there.

Hello Thomas, I see that you deleted the inner part of Pritchard Hall. I can clearly see the inner part of this building in aerial imagery, and you deleted this part from the building relation. Can you explain why you deleted this inner part from this building? Thanks.

Also note that roads should not run through buildings unless there is a road tunnel going underneath buildings or a road bridge going over buildings. Sections of road going underneath buildings should be tagged with tunnel=yes, and sections of road going over buildings should be tagged as bridge=yes or tagged with a layer tag depending on the structure.

Also note that roads should not run through buildings unless there is a road tunnel going underneath buildings or a road bridge going over buildings. Sections of road going underneath buildings should be tagged with tunnel=yes, and sections of road going over buildings should be tagged as bridge=yes or tagged with a layer tag.

Please save and upload your changes in one area before moving on to another.

Please save and upload you changes in one area before moving on to another.

The oneway=yes tag on those highway carriageways has been restored in changeset/176158410. Please elaborate on why you tagged valid one-way roads as not one-way.

Please don't tag motorway links that are actually one-way as not one way. Those motorway links or freeway ramps are clearly one-way.

Why did you tag actual one-way motorway links as not one-way? Those are clearly one-way. Those errors you made have been corrected by another mapper.

The alignment of the road you mapped (way/1445983866) is off from the actual alignment of the road seen in aerial imagery. The road curves going to the house, not going in a straight line. Please map and align roads going with the actual alignment of them seen on ground or aerial imagery.

What do you mean that you "gated" this driveway? You just changed this service road to a driveway.

Why did you change the direction of those one-way roads as going the opposite direction of the actual one-way restriction of those roads on the ground? You don't want to make routing software direct drivers to go on the wrong side of a divided road or go the wrong way on a one-way road. That error you made on OSM could potentially put lives at risk, cause accidents, and cause drivers to be stopped by police for going the wrong way. The United States drives on the right-hand side of the road, not the left-hand side. Many data consumers use OSM data for their maps or routing software, and they rely on the data to be correct in order for routing to be correct and accurate. So don't mess up the map data for data consumers.
oneway=*

Also, you deleted the gate nodes from those roads. I can clearly see in Bing Streetside images from 2014 and 2022 that the gates are clearly there. Did those gates get removed recently? What is the source for the removal of the gates?

In this changeset, you glued several roads to a suburb boundary. Please don't glue roads to administrative or suburb boundaries.

I changed this residential road to a service road in changeset/176078354

Those overclassified roads around this school have been downgraded in changeset/176072651. Those roads don't need to be tagged as unclassified roads.

Partially reverted in changeset/176072478

I downgraded those unclassified roads around this school to service roads and parking aisles in changeset/176071866. Please elaborate on why you changed valid service roads and driveways around schools to unclassified roads.

This borough/suburb relation that you broke in this changeset has been fixed in changeset/174636140. Would you care to explain what motivated this change?

Also, please don't glue roads to suburb or administrative boundaries. If a mapper adjusts the alignment of a road and it's connected to an administrative or suburb boundary, it would move the boundary along with the road, causing the boundary to be messed up or distorted.

Please don't just auto-accept the suggested fixes by the iD editor. You also added a crossing to where there isn't actually a crossing: node/13267041562