I have asked you this before, please when you add a feature don't just add a name and a housenumber, at minimum add the type of business (amenity=* etc) and the street name of the address if you are going to add address info. for OSM POI's to be truly useful they need at least a tag telling what they are. I have tagged it as a gym with sport=boxing, if that is incorrect feel free to fix it, also what street is this POI on as I didn't think I would correctly guess that based of of the provided information.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

some of these changes are incorrect as the imagery used is a bit out of date in the area, it is the latest available in iD but somewhat out of date. There is somewhat newer imagery in the area from the county that can be used in iD using the following custom imagery link: https://imageserverintra.miamidade.gov/arcgis/rest/services/Woolpert2025/ImageServer/exportImage?f=image&bbox={bbox}&bboxSR={wkid}&imageSR={wkid}&size={width},{height}+

There is the fact that the contributor that added several of these construction areas seems to be a local to the area.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

a few notes, first landuse tags usually should not be on the same way as the building tag, aka if you want to add those tags please trace the area the apartment complex actually takes up (the full grounds) next time. Second the surface tag doesn't really apply to an apartment complex like this. Along the same lines, "concrete_block_and_stucco" is not correct as usually materials and surfaces should be individually listed, for example "concrete_block;stucco". For more information on common values for the material tag see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building%3Amaterial#values .

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

two issues with this changeset, first and foremost, you created a dragged node, next time, before you upload a changeset please make sure that there aren't any vertexes that have been dragged beyond their alignments, doing so in iD tends to give you errors.
The second issues is that you added the business to the building part while removing that tag, building:part was there because the basic 3D shape of Brickell city center has been mapped on OSM and that way is part of that. You also added the tags for the business to that way which seems incorrect as there are already several businesses within the area of building part, when there are multiple like that add a business as a single point as tagging on the building part implies it takes up the whole area (and thus volume as that building part was tagged with levels).

osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings

I have gone ahead and fixed both of these issues.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

changeset generated with speedwalk and uploaded from JOSM.
https://a-b-street.github.io/speedwalk

I have started a conversation on the forums to see what the Florida community would prefer to standardize on when it comes to SR vs FL. If you want to comment there feel free, the link is https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/unifying-florida-ref-and-other-related-tagging-sr-vs-fl/141158 .

as for the stuff about the expressway segment, it is only "divided" between the ramps for the highway so I wouldn't really call that short segment a "expressway". From my understanding this is way to small to be an expressway. Also, if this is an expressway, allot of roads in Miami Dade could have "expressway" segments at highway entrance/exit ramps between the ramps.

I don't know how accurate the light poles around the Golden Glades Interchange are due to the fact that there is allot of construction in the area (it is not on bing aerial or esri), for more info see https://go-ggi.com/
as a note for you going forward there is also allot of construction around the intersection of Dolphine expressway, I 95 and and I 395, for more info on that see https://i395-miami.com/
If you have any further questions feel free to respond here or send me a private message through OSM, I am also on the OSMUS slack. you also don't have to delete everything as there is newer imagery from the county that shows some of the progress (its from early January of 2025 and there has been quite some progress on the construction since, with some recent changes from the Lyft team using their newer imagery). I can tell what that imagery is if you want (you can use it as a custom imagery layer in iD).

Happy mapping,
Udar.

What is you source for this building existing, I can confirm that it seems to be under construction on the latest imagery available from the county, but that is not listed in you sources or imagery used, so I am wondering what you used.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

Thank you so much for the change, this has been really helpful.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

South Dixie Highway is a long road, saying that it is an expressway is incorrect. I may understand if US 1 was dual carriageway for the area around the ramps for HEFT, but it isn't, it is dual carriageway for basically all of South Dixie Highway, so saying that this small segment is an expressway because of a feature that is present across its whole run seems incorrect.
There has to be a reason why South Dixie Highway was tagged with SR 5 so I would much prefer that a discussion would be had with the larger US OSM community on what the best way forward would be because, for consistency, if this segment gets changed to FL 5 then all roads tagged with SR 5 (or at least all of South DIxie Highway) should be converted to FL 5.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

why did you change HEFT from SR 821 to FL 821, what was the reasoning behind this change?

Happy mapping,
Udar.

a few questions, first along its run South Dixie Highway is tagged unsigned_ref=SR 5 so I think changing that would would require larger conversations, at minimum in the local-florida channel on the OSMUS slack but ideally with the larger US community as there is likely a good reason for the existing tagging. Second, from my understanding South Dixie Highway is not an expressway so tagging as one is incorrect. Third, why did you remove parts of HEFT where it meets with South Dixie Highway from the HEFT relation?

Happy mapping,
Udar

When you can see both the base and the roof of a building in the aerial imagery it should be aligned to the base of the building, thus several of the changes in this changeset are seemingly incorrect. See the following wiki pages for more details:
osm.wiki/Roof_modelling and osm.wiki/Buildings

Happy mapping,
Udar.

have you checked if the address 5700 Biscayne Boulevard no longer exists because if it still does it should have been removed from the building and placed into a node before the tags were removed from the building to turn it into the inner of the multipolygon.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

what did you use to check if the addresses you deleted no longer exist because according to official Miami Dade County sources 227 Southwest 6th Street and others still exist

(Sorry for the comment above this one, I accidentally hit comment before I had fully written the comment)

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

what did you use to check if the addresses you delted no longer exist because acording to oficial Miami Dade County sources

the ALPR added in this changeset is inside of a parking space when looking at it with the aerial imagery (I have checked with multiple aerial imagery in iD), please double check its position and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

again, please be more careful next time, these service roads no longer exist.

happy mapping,
Udar.

please stop doing this, there are literal highway=construction ways under the service roads you added within a construction area, there is active construction in the area, this is something that I can attest to as I drive by often. Please be more careful next time you add service roads.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.

the service roads you added at Southland Mall do not exist any longer due to construction in the area.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.