From my understanding political boundaries like this only follow road centerlines generally and not the centers of traffic islands splitting the dual carriageway of a road. So it is better to not align to the islands as you have in this changeset.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at the position of this ALPR on several aerial imagery sources in iD it seems incorrect. I highly doubt that they would put a ALPR in the area of the service road like this, especially because it is so close to the entrance of what looks like a drive through. Please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

From the get go, I am not saying this is incorrect, but it seems like adding leisure=stadium to relation 20585093 duplicates the tag as there is already a way (an area) with that tag that has the same shape as the outer of the relation (the way is way/1300303135). I have linked direct links to objects on the OSM website below
- relation/20585093
- way/1300303135

Happy mapping,
Udar.

what it your source for the addition of these pitches?
I doubt that they remain in their old shape from the Bing aerial imagery. I say this because the Esri aerial imagery is more up to date in the area and it shows the old racquetball courts having been demolished for the construction that occurred at this park last year. Based on information from the parks website it seems like the construction has completed, but it is also clear that that has replaced the old racquetball courts does not seem to have the same shape (seemingly it is pickleball courts).

Happy mapping,
Udar.

please respond

looking at way way/1507597315 in iD with various different aerial imagery it does not seem to be of the correct shape, the other bridge area seems to be correct. Why did you add this larger bridge area when the old one already existed

Happy mapping,
Udar.

mapping the roads like this (where you use geometry to represent movements instead of turn:lanes and change:lanes is generally incorrect. When there is one continuous area for a roads carriageway it should only have one way representing it as per the "One feature, one OSM element" principle in OSM. This includes when there is solid line between lanes, for more info please see osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway .

Happy mapping,
Udar.

Please double check the position of this ALPR as on multiple aerial imagery available in iD the position of this ALPR is within a roads area and thus its position is highly unlikely. Please check where this is actually located and fix it's position.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

next time please leave a better changeset comment describing what you did in the changeset, for this changeset something like "fixed various iD validation issues" would have been sufficient. For more info see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping,
Udar.

OK, I marked all the relevant roads as no longer under construction. If you want to feel free to review my changes, this was done in changeset changeset/181630211 .

Happy mapping,
Udar.

this is a crossing vertex, it shouldn't have footway=* tagged on it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

Whats your source for the addresses you deleted no longer existing as even if they are not signed on the property, the properties likely still have those addresses, there are official county sources for these things that can be used as sources for OSM contrinutions.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

thanks for the time, I'll take that to mean that the does the ramp from Northwest 107th Avenue to HEFT North at the same time as the rest of the DDI. I'll put in the changeset to mark all of these as no longer under construction shortly after 10:00am.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

whats your source that this is a power plant?

happy mapping,
Udar.

also please use the actual address tags (addr:*=*) when adding addresses.
I am also wonder what you mean by "addr_num=Petrol Pump"

Happy mapping,
Udar.

I still plan to do an alignment pass once the new 2026 imagery comes out whether or not I am the one that marks these as no longer under construction on April 21st.