RE: way/626017907/ I've been leaving these these kinds of ways unnamed. It avoids routing directions like "turn onto Foo St from Foo St".

If you want to be super specific you can split this way way/1010397291/history where the sidewalks have been added and have "sidewalk=both" only for the portion where the secondary footways haven't been added yet.

You may also want to join the Trails Working Group to discuss more ways we can get things like this sorted for everyone. More info here: https://openstreetmap.us/our-work/trails/

You'll want to revert the deletions and use access= tagging to correct those paths. The Trail Working Group has a good write up about things they've learned and, unfortunately, deletions are almost universally problematic.

osm.wiki/United_States/Trail_Access_Project

Definitely reach out if you have any questions.

Hello! Another user (ferog_v) is doing boundary updates and hit conflicts with their edit. I have tried to sort it out but it's possible that I may have mismerged something you were updating here and I would love if you could take a quick look.

Here's the changeset in question: changeset/151649332

Lovely work!

Oh bother, I should have clicked through your source tag which also has the list! Perfect.

Thanks for updating this! I presume it's the same roadway mentioned here? https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/clear-creek-county-renames-roads-replace-derogatory-wording/

The other entries in the article have been updated so I think we're squared away.

One thing to keep in mind is that roadway names are stored in OSM with their abbreviations expanded. In this case "Rd" -> "Road" which I have updated.

Thanks again and happy mapping!

Beautiful work!!

This is beautiful work! Great mapping!!

Stumbled across this while looking at other historic=aircraft items. Lovely work!!

Oh bother. I set up some guide lines to help get the spaces aligned while drawing and the tag bled over. Whoops. I'll get em outta here. Great find. Thank you!!

Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for confirming. Maybe someone right near there will eventually notice and get it sorted. Thanks for the response!

Hello! There's a few houses here with 2 addresses but they don't look like duplexes on aerial.. are they? There's also this oddity where 2 nodes have the same address... any ideas? node/10971809178/history

Thanks for taking a look.

Hello! The road classification here looks somewhat odd to me. There's more things marked as service+drive way than I'd expect. There's also a lot of things marked as surface=gravel that don't really look like it from the aerial? Is this from a survey?

Here's a good example: way/20765680/history

I was adding addresses around here and noticed the huge amount of sidewalk and other mapping. Nice work!!

This method is very slow but works. I should have this all cleaned up in a bit. Thanks all!

Oh that's a lovely workaround! Very clever.

On it.

So it seems JOSM will not flag things with name= as it presume they are a separate entity with (potentially correct) duplicate tagging. There's a setting that will be available in JOSM in the next release that will make this check a bit better so I'll have to roll through in a month or so and clean up. Thanks again for letting me know!

Curiously the JOSM validator does not flag them as duplicates. I am asking around if that's expected and will make sure I get this cleaned up once I get that sorted out. Hopefully only a few days.