looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

way/38549772 is secondary because it connects to other roads (residential and service) while way/439693075 doesn't have any other roads coming off of it, it is only there as a shortcut to get from the HEFT exit ramp to the entrance ramp or to get from Southwest 117th Avenue to the HEFT entrance ramp without having to go down to Southwest 152nd Street to get to it, it acts like a continuation of the exit ramp (as a ramp) its self and doesn't have any intersections that would lower it in the road hierarchy.
As for the second point I left most of my response to that on changeset/187486349 but I would like to point out that we do not map for the renderer, see osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer and osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer. It is ok if something looks a bit weird if that is the on the ground truth, in this example the lane marking I aligned everything to curved in significantly so I followed in. In my edit today I straightened it out a bit to avoid any future confusion but it still follows the line mostly.

Happy mapping,
Udar

a few issues here, first road centerline should not be attached to road markings (way/1549570037), second the exit ramp from HEFT to Southwest 120th Street was aligned to the correct road marking before this edit, I have moved it back and added placement=* to indicate this. Also next time you edit a crossing way where the crossing is a straight line (like way/1020084750) please make sure to straighten it before uploading (right click on the way and click on the "Straighten" button or use the shortcut "S".

Happy mapping,
Udar

phone numbers are usually formatted (in the US) +1-XXX-XXX-XXXX , this changeset changed a phone number that was almost correct to less correct by removing multiple `-`'s.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

As googles license is incompatible with OSM's license we are not allowed to use them as a source for contributions, I point this out due to node/61443042 .

happy mapping,
Udar

looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

it is evlen more unlikely that you would find a pole mounted ALPR in the midde of the road, please double check the actual position of this ALPR and fix it on OSM.

Happy mapping,
Udar

looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

Texas is a US state so admin_level=4 seems like the correct tag from my limited understanding. Also next time please leave a better changeset comment, for more info see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments .

Happy mapping,
Udar

two issues here, first of all the name added here seems unlikely to be correct as it is more of a description and thus isn't correct, names are not supposed to be a description of the object, they are intended for an actual name used, in this case if there is a name it would likely com from FDOT or GMX (the county) and I doubt that. If this comes from such a source please provide it. Not everything needs a name, something just do not have one and that is ok. If these do not exist as described above they should not be added. Second This name used short codes and in OSM we use the full expanded names of objects (in this case "NW" would need to be expanded to Northwest and "Ave" not Avenue).

Happy mapping,
Udar.

two issues here, first of all the name added here seems unlikely to be correct as it is more of a description and thus isn't correct, names are not supposed to be a description of the object, they are intended for an actual name used, in this case if there is a name it would likely com from FDOT or GMX (the county) and I doubt that. If this comes from such a source please provide it. Not everything needs a name, something just do not have one and that is ok. If these do not exist as described above they should not be added. Second This name used short codes and in OSM we use the full expanded names of objects (in this case "NW" would need to be expanded to Northwest and "Ave" not Avenue).

Happy mapping,
Udar.

two issues here, first of all the name added here seems unlikely to be correct as it is more of a description and thus isn't correct, names are not supposed to be a description of the object, they are intended for an actual name used, in this case if there is a name it would likely com from FDOT or GMX (the county) and I doubt that. If this comes from such a source please provide it. Not everything needs a name, something just do not have one and that is ok. If these do not exist as described above they should not be added. Second This name used short codes and in OSM we use the full expanded names of objects (in this case "NW" would need to be expanded to Northwest and "Ave" not Avenue).

Happy mapping,
Udar.

The name added here seems unlikely to be correct as it is more of a description and thus isn't correct, names are not supposed to be a description of the object, they are intended for an actual name used, in this case if there is a name it would likely com from FDOT or GMX (the county) and I doubt that. If this comes from such a source please provide it. Not everything needs a name, something just do not have one and that is ok. If these do not exist as described above they should not be added.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

The name added here seems unlikely to be correct as it is more of a description and thus isn't correct, names are not supposed to be a description of the object, they are intended for an actual name used, in this case if there is a name it would likely com from FDOT or GMX (the county) and I doubt that. If this comes from such a source please provide it. Not everything needs a name, something just do not have one and that is ok. If these do not exist as described above they should not be added.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

The name added here seems unlikely to be correct as it is more of a description and thus isn't correct, names are not supposed to be a description of the object, they are intended for an actual name used, in this case if there is a name it would likely com from FDOT or GMX (the county) and I doubt that. If this comes from such a source please provide it. Not everything needs a name, something just do not have one and that is ok. If these do not exist as described above they should not be added.

Happy mapping,
Udar.