First, applications conform to OSM tagging practices, not the other way around. Secondly, stop area is well defined and understood by the community. See my other comment in changeset changeset/53770759 regarding stop areas

I think you're missunderstanding what stop_area_groups are for. They aren't meant to be used in simple cases like these. The complexity increase is only justifiable when the names of the station change depending on the line they serve, which is not the case here (from the original proposal: "Sie sollte nicht als grundsätzliche und einzige Möglichkeit zur Modellierung von Umsteigebeziehungen missverstanden werden, sondern als Möglichkeit mehrere Gesamthalt-Relationen zusammenzufassen, die beispielsweise nur durch Namenszusätze voneinander unterschiedene Teile eines Haltes repräsentieren. Es sollte also nicht für jeden Halt, an dem mehr als eine Verkehrsmittelart hält, eine Gesamthalt-Gruppe erstellt werden, sondern nur dann, wenn es mehrere Halte gibt, die nur durch Namenszusätze voneinander unterschieden sind [...]" see osm.wiki/DE:Proposed_features/Public_transport_schema)

The change to subway station will be reverted, as this is an aerialway station, not a subway station. Such tagging is mapping for the renderer.

Station names should reflect the name as it appears in official schedules. Do you have any verifiable source where the station name appears with the line it serves in parenthesis as this changeset indicates?

Hi, what is the reason for having two separate stop area relations for each line? All features belong to the same station, and a stop area relation is meant to group such features, irrespective of which line they serve. I look forward to your response, in the absence of which your changes will be reverted. Thanks.

This changeset has been reverted. To add a feature, please create a new node instead of overwriting information of existing features. For help, please visit osm.org/help

Hi, regarding the change to the ref value in this changeset, if you're doing this as a matter of course (i.e. adding the direction to the ref) could you please point me to the discussion where this was decided? If not, please revert: this is inconsistent with the way all interstate refs are mapped. Thanks in advance.

Hi, can you please provide a verifiable source for these features?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/57890715

Hi, could you please provide a verifiable source for the Logan Boulevard dual carriageway being completed and the name change to Bello Blvd?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58890871

Hi, what's the source for this? Please enter meaningful changeset comments (see osm.wiki/Good_practice#Good_changeset_comments).
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/58891147

Hi, the relation added in this changeset claims to be part of the co:national network, but the members belong to several different national routes. What was the purpose or intention with this relation so that we might correctly classify it? As it stands, we need to remove it from the national highway network. Thanks

Since I didn't hear back from you I've reverted your edit. A quick search in the Wiki for DMV would have yielded the correct tag to use in this case, assuming of course local knowledge of what a the DMV is (it is not clear by looking at your the geographical area of your edits that that's the case).

Hi, can you specify the source for this turn restriction? There is a turning lane on the left, so something is wrong... Thanks in advance for the info

Hi, I've removed the aeroway=aerodrome tag from this node node/5548721353. If it was added in error please remove the node completely or add an appropriate tag. Thanks

Specifically: "Pay attention to the value of the lanes=* key. The number of lanes is referred to the lanes available to the traffic using the main highway=* key, in this example and also by definition of lanes=* key __motorized traffic__."

Hi, the number of lanes was increased to 4 in this changeset. However, this is exactly the same lane layout in the example on the wiki osm.wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles, where lanes=3. Which is correct?

Hi, I was mapping in north Broward County, FL, and noticed the nodes. It seems both nodes and ways were originally created in the same changeset as both are/were v1. This is a small example: osm.org/edit?changeset=57250325#map=17/26.28700/-80.18459. Cheers

*unconnected untagged nodes

Hi, roads were deleted in this changeset, but their constituent nodes were not, so that what remains are unconnected untagged roads...

Hi, how is the DMV a logistics office?