There was an extra node added to way/43393192, and two buildings added to an island in Western Australia. Doesn't look like it needs reverting.

Hi, is the road actually named this (highly unlikely for a driveway)? If not, the name should be left empty, and the correct name should be placed on the main object.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148338644

Hi, the Trinity College South name should be put on the school area at large, not a specific building.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148248498

Hi, the Trinity College North name should be put on the school area at large, not a specific building.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148248508

Hi, if you're creating a driveway, it should also be tagged with service=driveway
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148248762

Hi there, we generally avoid SEO like descriptions on OSM, plus the tracking query tags on the website should be removed. I've made those changes for you.
Also, grades and phone have specific formats, I've fixed those as well.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148248738

And yeah, definitely better to revert to the previous one if you're not sure, pretty sure that's been the consensus so far with these ones.

I'll see if I can take a detour and drive that way at some point, or see if we've got any street level imagery. It's kind of a feeder road, but also could be slow enough that residential fits better. Definitely not secondary though!

I reckon Crittenden Road could possibly be classed as tertiary, but Coventry Road looks good to me.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148232861

Hi, this should be tagged as a service road, not a residential road.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148229656

Hi, this highway appears to go straight through a fence/barrier of some kind according to Mapbox imagery, are you able to verify if this road actually exists/is connected in this way? If the road does exist, it doesn't look like it's been drawn correctly, it should be closer to a right angle to the road with a bit of a kink in it from what I can see.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148229663

Hey there, nice work, I'd just recommend clicking on each building after you've added it and pressing the Q button to square them off!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148227888

Hi, is this whole area a building? If not, then building= shouldn't be set, and the buildings should be individually mapped.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148201738

Hey Evlyn, thanks for fixing that up!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148185674

Hi, is the start_date accurate or even needed for this? Did this business actually open on New Years Day 2010?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147727116

Hi, the address should be placed on the main object, not the entrance node.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148157257

Forgot to set source, survey.

osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Roads#Heavy_Vehicle_Enforcement has the section on tagging the Safe-T-Cam cameras, and I didn't know about them checking registrations so thanks for that link!

Hey, I don't believe these are actually speed cameras, and are just Safe-T-Cam cameras, do you know if these have changed recently (last couple of months)? If they're Safe-T-Cam cameras, they don't do rego checks or speed, and there's a certain way to tag them listed on the OSM Wiki.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148077272

OSM shouldn't be edited to fix how Kartographer renders.

It seems like either Q23287 actually matches to two objects in OSM (which would be pretty rare) or that the Wikidata tag should only be on one, in which case it's best to actually explain that in your edit.

I'm not from the UK so I don't know the nuances of ceremonial counties and which one would be valid, but if it's valid to be on two relations, then it should be on both and Kartographer needs to figure out how to handle that.