Please do not write "unknown" for names you do not know. You can leave the name blank or use fixme=*. Also, you should not classify random segments of roads as primary_link.

That is inappropriate. The rules are clear. If you aren't manually reviewing all the data then it's an import and needs to be discussed. If it's not an import, you should be adding it with a different account.

Calling the standards that have been worked on for years nonsense just because they inconvenience you is just rude. By discussing imports, they can be made higher quality. If this were discussed and I'd participated in the discussion, I could've mentioned that there seem to be issues with some of the station names. Then you could've fixed that and had no issues with this import. Instead, you've left yourself open to someone reverting your changes and potentially being blocked from editing.

Just because you believe yourself the only real contributor of this type of data does not mean that your opinion holds all the weight.

I would rather the data be fixed than reverted. I see no reason to bring this to the DWG unless you cannot/are not willing to do so. Please: make sure no stations are duplicated (it's fine not to merge with polygons just tagged with landuse); remove state names from plant names (unless they are truly part of the name); remove refs from names (add as ref=* instead); remove website tags that don't link to the official page for an individual feature; fix website tags that redirect (I saw one in the nodes I checked).

If you correct all this, it is as though this were never an import. Otherwise, I believe the data quality will be deleterious to OpenStreetMap.

You don't need to add access tags to everything. It is obvious that cars aren't allowed on paths and as there are no signs actually posted about horses, no need to add that either.

Apologies for the error. I likely misclicked when trying to select an address node.

Fixed in changeset/124960335

Definitely not.

Is it really spelled with an extra space as "West Moreland" over "Westmoreland"? way/1071778840

The footprint wasn't 100% accurate, being slightly rotated off. They didn't preserve the history, instead submitting the edit across two changesets.

This could be a consequence of mapping for OSM Streak. I have not used it but I think it may require users to add a new feature, not just improve an existing one. A shame, really, because there are still a lot of new buildings in the area that haven't been mapped yet.

It's all manual, it's just really low quality.

This user never responds to changeset comments and has already been blocked twice for it.

I drove by Linder and State today. The only physical barrier is to the south.

name=* is not for descriptions. node/6705147488 should be tagged as religion=christian and perhaps a fixme requesting the name.

Please check the case of addr:state. It should be all caps.

Check addr:state on way/444328100.

addr:state=ID?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4710892055/history

I would have to ask the same about Linder and State.

Is the road really physically divided at way/1085450147? I see a short island. It should only be represented with two ways for the length where the island is present.

Also, you should not add horse=* access to roads in Ada County. There are no signs posted anywhere because horses are not used for transportation here.

All incorporated municipalities in Idaho are cities. This does not mean they are marked as a place=city, which is for places with a high population and/or major amenities like an airport.

Check spelling of "cemetery" too.

Make sure to expand all suffixes (Court over Ct.)