These days a source tag on the changeset itself rather than the OSM objects edited is sufficient, see source=* for some background. For instance, on your colleague's recent edit, changeset/179643467, source=survey;dashcam on the changeset is suitable, that information does not need to go on the way. For this edit, I do not think any gps data is your source, it's really just general knowledge about speed limit units in the US.

Is Glen Echo really currently a theme park? I don't think there are any rides except for the carousel, otherwise it's more of a cultural center. Maybe disused:amenity=theme_park?

Reverted in changeset/179653761. Feel free to re-add the camera, but be careful not to touch other ways if you don't mean to!

Hi, please be careful not to drag nodes and delete things unintentionally like this, your edits go live immediately. I am reverting this

Hi there, thanks for doing this check, it seems like these roads did need the mph in their speed limits. Can I ask what the source=gps is supposed to mean? It seems wholly unnecessary on the ways, and presumably not even true unless you are surveying each of these roads personally

This coffee shop is permanently closed, which is why it was marked as disused:amenity=cafe.

Fixed in changeset/178911475

Hello, in this change you have moved some nodes in Washington, DC, USA in addition to adding roads in Myanmar. Please keep your edits to one region and be careful when looking at other areas.

Hi the crossing you deleted is actually there, the street was recently repaved. Please don't delete crossings you can't see on aerials if they've been recently added.

Hi VLD319,
I strongly disagree that crossing=uncontrolled is appropriate here, as the pedestrian is still expected to follow the vehicular traffic signals or risk getting run over, despite the lack of a pedestrian-specific signal head. These and other situations like this are widely tagged as crossing=traffic_signals and crossing:signals=yes. See for example the last documented example at crossing:signals=*, which is exactly like the situation here and tagged crossing:signals=yes.
Best,
Will

Why did you remove traffic signals tagging here? There are mapped traffic signals at the intersection

This changeset deleted the I 79 route relations for no obvious reason, as well as an apparently existing wildlife reservation. I assume it was a mistake?

OK thanks for looking into it. In the future if you use mapillary, it might help to put mapillary or street-level imagery in the changeset source

Hi there, it seems like you might be using old imagery to make these changes? These are not zebra markings, they were correct before.

Reverted in 177664768

Just a heads up, I ended up reverting most of these and some other changes nearby. I really don't think all these dead end roads that only lead to adjacent properties should be tertiary, even if they are wide. Tertiary to me implies some ability for through routing, in other words you should be able to go along a tertiary road to connect between areas.

That makes sense! Yeah like in the diary piece from the changeset comment, I think painted centerlines are generally a good metric in CA, because the standard is to add one if the road gets a certain level of traffic. But they tend to be less good in a few edge cases: they often get painted on curvy or especially wide roads regardless of traffic count, or in areas where there's a lot of local traffic but little through traffic. I think all three might apply here and in other parts of SD too. Thanks for addressing these issues when people raise them, it can be tricky stuff!

Add weekend variant to D96 and add stops to relation in Bethesda

In case it's interesting, a few years ago I wrote up my general rationale for how I classify roads in urban areas: @willkmis/diary/399345. A lot of it was based on my edits to the road network in LA, so a pretty similar development style. It's not gospel or anything, since this area in OSM is pretty subjective at the end of the day, but maybe there are ideas in there that are useful.

I really don't think a lot of these roads should be primary. Point Loma Ave is stop-sign controlled, one lane each way, and traffic along Cañon doesn't even have a stop sign at their intersection. All of these aspects indicate to me that it probably shouldn't be primary. In general I think most of the old classifications were a better representation of the road network in this area, not that they were perfect. How did you decide what to upgrade here?