this parking seems to be for the court house so I am unsure if access=private is correct in this case, can you prove that this is only for employees or something, or could it also be for those that are defendants etc because then it may not be private.

based on on the aerial imagery this looks like more of a parking you pay for not for any particular business so I am unsure if private is the best value.

have you checked if any of the parking at this highschool is for student parking, because if there is access=private doesn't seem like the correct tag for the situation.

these are clearly residential roads, just because there is parking along the road does not mean that it is a service road.

have you checked if any of the ap0rking lots at this highschool allow student parking because it any do then access=private would be inaccurate.

are you sure that this parking is not for LoanDepot Park, because if it is then I am not sure that access=private would be appropriate.

if you look at the imagery this is a oneway

looking at their website I do not think that access=no is warranted https://hachidoggrooming.com/

I am unsure this is private, do you have proof that this is only for private use because to me this seems more like public parking (maybe with a fee associated).

this is staff parking so access=employees is correct.

this is staff parking so access=employees is correct.

Ok, I implemented a fix in 171597335, but I am not 100% sure of the tagging of the footways so I have brought it up in the OSMUS slack: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C6E4S4CQG/p1757267057670689

so, just to clarify the bikes share lanes with cars, aka cycleway=shared_lane would be applicable, is that correct?
for context the relevant wiki page would be cycleway=shared_lane.

as with changeset/171522294 in this changeset you added something tagged as a footway but based on the imagery it looks like a bike lane, so is way/1427629238 a bike lane or are pedestrians also allowed to walk on it.

my bad, forgot to fix the addr:street_address when I copied the address data over from ATP, I will be more careful next time.

next time please provide more address tags, especially the associated street of the address, and when you add a name to an address please add some tag describing what it is like office=*, amenity=* or any other such tags.

happy mapping,
Udar.

please stop adding objects that are just one address tag and a name without any other tags to specify what it is.

based on the imagery way/1427418996 looks more like a bike lane then a footway, is for pedestrians and bicyclists or just bikes?

the location seems incorrect as I don't see any evidence of a camp ground at this location

why did you delete the map (node/6956220575 ), what is you source for it no longer existing.