The point is that you cannot copy data from other sources if you have not been given permission to do so. If you know a hotel exists because you personally have been there, or because you can see it from properly licensed imagery, or because it's in a properly licensed database, then you can add it, but if you are finding hotels by searching a website that did not give you permission to use the search results for OSM, that is not allowed (and makes mapping harder for everyone else).

See the wiki: osm.wiki/Copyright#Proprietary_data

Just as importantly, if the DWG reverts your edits, and you have not gotten permission from them to undo that revert, you cannot just decide they were wrong and do it anyway. That's a good way to get banned.

You detached the buildings, but left them overlapping. Do the buildings abut each other? Then they do indeed need to attach on the map. Do they have a gap between them? Then they need to be moved to show that.

This changeset broke the multipolygon for Victoria Park Lake. Please try to do fewer things in each changeset, it make it easier to notice these sorts of things.

You deleted the Breithaupt Park reserve. Was this an accident, or is there some sort of misunderstanding? Restored in changeset/152427393

Thanks for the edits! Going forward, it's helpful if you provide a changeset summary, to help other editors in the area get a quick idea of what's going on.

Resloves note/4238133

Resolves note/4232763

nit: I should have cited Esri World Imagery for this edit as well (Bing doesn't have the newer inner buildings)

Resolves note/4210564

You changed this stretch of the road from a residential road to a motorway (i.e., a freeway). I switched it back, but was this just a misclick, or was there something you were trying to change aside from the speed limit?

resolves note/4187606

How were you able to tell the address is on Olympic and not Pattandon?

No worries, thanks for the edits!

Fair enough, I was probably looking in the wrong place. Thanks for the quick reply. :)

You tagged a width as "a", I'm guessing that's a typo:
way/1117294685

It looks like you tagged a bunch of regular paths as crossings (cycleway=crossing). Crossings are for street crossings, not general paths. I went ahead and fixed it.

I went to survey a couple details around this park today, and didn't see any dedicated bike parking here. Is this in reference to the wooden notice board? Or was the stand perhaps removed?

Something went wrong with this edit, where you added some paths that were already mapped. I ran into something similar from one of your edits a while back (a POI that already existed). I'm guessing your editor sometimes gets incomplete map data for some reason. So far nothing hard to fix, and maybe you've already resolved it, just letting you know in case.

For future reference, it's preferred if edits are kept to geographically smaller areas (say about the size of a city, depending on what's being edited, though there's no exact rule--larger edits are fine for rural or large features like highways, smaller is better for details like curb heights). It looks like this has changes around Edmonton and Waterloo, which makes the changeset area include everything between those two cities.

For reference, access=yes means everything (including, e.g., cars and trucks) can access it. It's pretty rare on foot paths. :P