Seems to be OK. Maybe some sort of iD issue?

Wrong comment. should be adding building tag to way/597173308

Wrong comment. Should be removed superfluous way ...

Hi.

I hope that link is not where you are getting your road names from. That is an ESRI product and we don't have permission to use the data from some of the sources that it uses.

Thanks.

This is the same problem. Q5491115 is the town. The relation is the bounded locality. I had already moved the wikidata item to the place node.

Q21896816 is the wikidata item for the settlement of Manypeaks. This relation is the bounded locality of Manypeaks which is not the same thing. You should put the wikidata item on the place node.

Due to an Overpass fail I also picked up changes in 105985041 and 105989635.

Sorry about the giant bbox.

Changeset has been reverted changeset/130736524

Changeset has been reverted changeset/130736463

Changeset has been reverted changeset/130736395

Hi,

You have connected way/665266803 to a cycle path. Is that what you meant to do?

Thanks.

Hi

You've left this road dangling node/10122855015

I'll let you join it up.

Thanks.

Is this all Oracle? On their website it appears to be a hotel that operates in one of the buildings here.

Wrong changset comment. This one fixes turn restriction relation/14220162

Hi,

You've made way/278786632 one way which means you can't turn right. There is a turn lane in the imagery.

Was this based on survey?

Thanks.

Hi,

These are not man_made=survey_point as there is no form of monumentation.

You could add notes to the turning points on the border, but for some reason the border doesn't seem to line up with them.

Thanks.

Done changeset/128516108

Probably.

Good question. This went in 9 years ago changeset/17083631 as proposed. Nine months ago you changed it to construction changeset/116452012. I was doing some mapping around here and noticed there was a highway that was supposed to be under construction but I couldn't find it on the imagery, so I changed it back to proposed, on the assumption that the original mapper had known what they were doing.

If you think the work they've done in town replaces the bypass proposal, then I would suggest you just delete it.

@aharvey ... just discovered this through a QA warning. I agree that hazmat with a conditional would be better.