See changeset/51633404

Hi!
Please review typo highway=bridge
on way/520288430
I assume you meant highway=track + brige=yes instead?
Also strange:
way/520288434
Is there a bridge and a ford?
If so, please draw two ways.

Sorry, it was highway=abandoned:path

Hi!
I've changed the unusual highway=abandoned_path to
abandoned:highway=path
See also osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Hi!
I've changed the unusual highway=abandoned_path to
abandoned:highway=path
See also osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Sorry, got impatient ;-)

Well, many mappers don't like imports at all.
Another reason may be that there are two very different tagging systems for sidewalks, both well established.
See osm.wiki/Sidewalks

Yes, that's why I don't think that this is the name of the footway.

I've changed them all, see
changeset/51615120

That is true, the difference is that you have used the tag on a way, not on a node.
I also assume that many are mistagged traffic_sign=* or maybe tourism=information.
Question is why you want to map the sign,
I think the important thing is that the corresponding highway has the correct name tag.

Ah, sorry, there is already a historic tag. I think the highway tag is obsolete here.

Sorry, don't understand. I posted links to two different turn restrictions. One is obsolete, one is incomplete (the no_u_turn)

What do you think about historic=city_gate?
historic=city_gate

Danke für die Rückmeldung :-)

Hi!
Please check typo highway=alley
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/rng
The all look like highway=service + service=driveway to me.

Hi!
Please review highway=alley
on lane 3668 and 3671.
Did you mean highway=service + service=alley ?

Hi!
Please review typo highway="Travessa do Pico da Igreja"
Did you want to change the name tag?

Aber Du bleibst bei residential ?

Did you mean living_street?

Seems something went wrong, I still find these roads.