I live near this area, and it is in my commute, this building does not exist, neither does the park.

this changeset removed the obviously incorrect building=yes that was added to the business in changeset/171333082. I also left questions on a previous changeset of the users (171005707). I just fixed the obviously incorrect aspects of the business as I do not have the time to check if they exist but do not want bad data in OSM in this region so I fix what I can.

then building=yes is incorrect.

so does this mean that this business takes up the whole building.

from what I remember, in this area there are no bike lanes. you can use the sidewalk or the M-path so bicycle=use_sidepath would be the correct tag to use. Also if you look at recent aerial and street side imagery non of them show painted markings on US 1 that indicate that you can ride your bike on the main road.

this was previously placed in a building and now is not, and I doubt that a bar (which is what this is tagged as) would not be in a building. I am also pretty sure that the buildings in this area are residential from Bing streetside, there are some retail/commercial looking buildings in the area but this object would need to be moved to be in those.
So the question becomes, is this bar real and if it is were is it actually located.

happy mapping,
Udar

To be honest here, I was hoping that you could send a screenshot of the aerial imagery you used as you have in the passed so that I can check for my self. Sorry for the imposition.

Happy mapping,
Udar

can y'all do another pass through the pedestrian features in the area as after this changeset they are kind of rough in the area round the roads y'all changed and I cannot fix any of them as non of the aerial imagery sources in the area are up to date enough.

that's the whole issue, you replaced a parking=surface parking lot area with individual smaller areas, if you want to map the parking spaces, actually map the individual amenity=parking_space 's out, if you are not willing to do that do not split in this manner the correctly mapped parking areas.

next time please don't delete parking lots that are already mapped

next time please don't delete existing parking lots.

also unless there has been some recent construction in the area this is not within a building and most of the building surrounding seem to be apartments and other residential buildings so I am wondering if this is actually were this business is located.

happy mapping,
Udar

sidewalk:*=no is implied on highway=motorway_link.

sidewalk:*=no is implied on motorway's and motorway_link's.

The question is why did you add the source=https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZGkynDZNLDbRvtKa7 , was it as a kind of SEO or because that is were you got information about the business you added from?

we are not supposed to use google as a source for contributions as their license is incompatible with ours.

seems y'all were correct, and thank you for the prompt fix changeset in 170823353.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

the alignment of way way/11165237 seems off along with the crossing (or really lack of a crossing way) were it meets the sidewalk. Though this could just be the case as none of the available imagery in iD shows any of this.

I have manually reverted you changeset as, after a conversation with others on the OSMUS slack, and not getting anything back from you after multiple hours it seems that this changeset is SEO spam and thus it was undone.

Happy mapping,
Udar

as requested in changeset changeset/165714447 , has this started construction yet or not? I ask because from the website it seems like this hasn't ever broken ground yet so I don't think this is tagged correctly.