This is looking more and more like a motorway now since the removal of at grade intersections, the increased speed limit, lack of traffic lights now.

This is not the correct way to fix this... probably better to just omit the name completely.

why not use alt_name? name_1 is deprecated name=*

I reverted your change because the wikidata entry you used is for a bay ie a body of water. The OSM feature relation/1214649 already has that wikidata id, this relation is for the administrative boundary not the body of water.

just a tip, although not essential, it's best practice to try and use the existing node as part of the new way and transfer the tags across, that helps retain the history a bit better than deleting the node completely. it's not always possible though, or easy so again not essential.

Top job!

no worries!

I've fixed the format, it should just be en:Title not the full URL.

I've fixed this now, since it does look like you'd dragged it accidentally.

ALso I notice you're using Nearmap as your imagery, could you please confirm that you're licensed to derive data and have no restrictions on that derived data? Lastly it looks like this is part of a teachosm project, was this change done as part of a mapping event?

Hi, trees are better represented as nodes, natural=wood is for larger areas covered by trees not individual trees.

hi you've also moved the toilets https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/78856934

Was that accidental, if so could you fix it please?

duration and interval tags here are very approximate

aren't locked, in which case it just means you need to out of the car to open it, but can still pass though.

That's a different kind of gate, you've used waterway=lock_gate

You could instead use:
barrier=gate
then say which modes of transport can and can't use it so typically
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
motor_vehicle=no (or motor_vehicle=private)

It's not well document but you could also use locked=yes as some gates aren'

comment should read L2, L3 and L1 not T.

Okay sorry. I think this change is good, unlike a cycle lane which has a painted bicycle or other signage, a shoulder doesn't indicate bicycles, so I think in this case if bicycle access is not permitted then cycleway=shoulder doesn't make sense.

Yes the infrastructure is still existing on the ground, but an access restriction is in place (which has spanned > 1 year). cycleway=lane + bicycle=no is the best way to model the real world situation.

We discussed this at changeset/77842957 technically the cycle lane is still there, but bicycles aren't allowed to use it so bicycle=no.

could you elaborate on the problem with cycleway=shoulder? I know it's weakly defined but does have some documentation at cycleway=*