please review :
way/234462105 had invalid tags:
highway=path;unclassified
surface=ground;paving_stones

me again ;-)
I have started to check the database
for new highway=* tags and it seems that you really like to invent new tags, so your work pops up on my list.
way/217569275 looks clearly like a
highway=service,service=driveway
to me, maybe maybe service=parking_aisle.
You use
highway=manoeuvring forecourt
(note the missing underscore)
highway_1=driveway
If you are concerned about the rendering
of your work you really should try to
use the well documented tags listed in the wiki:
highway=*

hmm, the bus relation seems to be broken now:
relation/2898930

thanks, no offence meant.
You will notice that these roads are now rendered in the map.

well, I think highway=* should be used
for information that is relevant for routers.
I think the area shown at
changeset/34598843
is landuse=residential, so
if you want to map the green you use natural=*

okay, thanks for the feedback

hmm, I am not sure if I understand. You seem to search for something like barrier=hedge?

yes, sure. I changed it to unclassified without any local knowledge .

please review the tags on the
power=tower node/310178067.
You probably wanted to change another object?

please review:
nodes with highway=trunk and junction=roundabout make no sense.
Not sure what was meant here.

okay, vielleicht bin ich zu blöd, aber warum zwei Wege mit genau den gleichen Punkten?

Danke. Das Problem ist eher iD, dieses Problem haben viele Anwender.

please review:
what does highway=declared mean?
Did you mean highway=footway or highway=pedestrian?

please review way/260288775,
I've changed it to highway=residential,
but the name might also be wrong

please review:
I've removed this way and added the tag
cycleway=lane to the corresponding
highway=tertiary way.
See also cycleway=*

bitte prüfen:
Weg 278634459 hat jetzt die ungültigen tags
highway=cycleway;track
width=3;2

please review:
the tags highway:forward=crossing_signals,
highway=crossing_signals and crossing=crossing_signals probably should
all use =traffic_signals ?
The values appear at or near node/257325609

@SomeoneElse - I referred to my proposal of using the tag highway=proposed in combination with a note. The note would not be machine readable.

please review:
the tag highway=living_street;residential
on way/117920371 is invalid.
The middle part duplicates an unnamed
tertiary road, both are now part of the relation/2898930.

please review:
I've changed way/372822575
from highway=castle to historic=castle
way/372822575