Ah, forgot to say that highway=crossing should not be used on ways, only on nodes. That was the reason why I looked at it in the first place.

Hi! Please review way/512161070
Both Bing and ESRI show a fence between the 1st and 2nd node, so it seems impossible to cross the roads there. I also don't think that you should copy data from a County Bike map, this is probably not a legal source.

@AlaskaDave: Thanks for the info. I see that you started to edit this, so I will not do anything else here.

Hi!
You removed most tags from the way describing the pipeline:
way/253952219
way/8987867

Hi and welcome to OSM!
Please check:
You also modified the road so that the tags are now highway=crossing;tertiary
way/109442133
To map a crossing you have to add a node on the highway, not next to it like here node/6024983714
See also highway=crossing

Hi and welcome to OSM!
I've noticed this changeset because of the landuse=residential area which is also tagged with highway=crossing:
way/418545628
Please be very careful with Go Map!, I see quite a lot of these errors produced with this app.
I also see many nodes with lamp_type=street lamp in this area. The usual tag for this is highway=street_lamp"

Hi!
I've corrected the tags for some pedestrian crossings here:
changeset/64034265
changeset/64034307
I can't try it because I have no Iphone. Does Go Map! suggest to use highway=crossing on ways?
This would be an error in the app and you should report it.

Hi!
Please check way/548629361
You added highway=traffic_signals to a building, as well as a name. Was any of this intended?

Hi! Why do you use the unusual tag highway=yes here?
way/639137994
way/639137995
I think unclassified or track are reasonable. If you are not sure, please use highway=road, not highway=yes

I agree with mueschel. My understanding is that the routing apps should show something like "enter roundabout ... leave roundabout at 2nd exit". The apps don't need to know where the traffic signs are. I think when you map a traffic sign it shows that you visited the place, thus it somehow adds credibility to your edits.

Moin!
Schau bitte noch mal auf way/638812209
Das sieht für mich nicht so aus wie die Bilder zu highway=bus_guideway in wiki:
highway=bus_guideway
Dort wird für normale Nur-Bus-Straßen
highway=service, access=no, bus=designated
vorgeschlagen.

Regarding the position of the pipeline:
I assume that it always parallels the service road that is visible in the places that I mentioned?

I am not a local, so I won't contribute to the discussion. What I see now after your recent changes looks good to me.

Ah, OK, your cs comment said Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta, but you are right, Esri World Imagery shows the buildings with the current shapes.

OK, I give up. You want to establish a new tag here and up to now it seems that I am the only one who doesn't like it. Since you added access=no at least it should not any harm.

Ah, yes, it is OK to use junction=roundabout on a node for small roundabouts which are not mini-roundabouts.

My understanding of the wiki
junction=roundabout
is that the tag junction=roundabout should not be used on nodes at all.
Which routing apps do you mean?

Hi!
Please check typo highway=untrack
on way/593192830
I guess you wanted to change it from unclassified to track, but the northern end
is still a bridge with highway=tertiary which is connected to a highway=unclassified.
Please note that highway=track implies that the road is "mostly agricultural use".
In case of way/593192830 I would opt for unclassified, as well as for the bridge.

I also wonder why the shape of this building is so large:
way/638831279
All sat images show a much smaller building.
Same problem here:
way/638831350
Maybe sat images are out-aged?

Hi!
Why did you change highway=road to the unusual highway=unspecified?
It looks like a highway=residential to me, as well as way/92622380, which is tagged highway=unclassified (!?)