Within all of the imagery I can view in iD at the moment the ALPR added in this changeset is within the road area and thus the position is highly unlikely, I am not saying it doesn't exist, I just don't think it is positioned correctly, I would just like you to double check the position of this ALPR.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

you didn't have to delete these, individual units can be mapped as individual address nodes as long as they have the addr:unit tag and these had it so they where correct. As long as the addresses haven't been changed I don't see anything wrong with how they where mapped.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

next time can you please leave a better changeset comment as the comment on this one doesn't really tell me anything about what you did in this changeset. A good changeset comments doesn't need to be to complex, something like "Updated the description of a business" would have been sufficient for this changeset. For more information on changeset comments see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping,
Udar.

As with your previous changeset the same applies:
- Next time please leave a changeset comment that better describes what you did in the changeset, for more info see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments
- this changeset also adds duplicate information as facebook=*, instagram=*, linkedin=* are already tagged through contact:facebook=* etc

this time you also removed the height from the building that this business is attached to, next time please don't.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

Yes, please change it if you can, I will not be able to do much for the next 9 hours as I am on the road right now.

Happy mapping.
Udar.

my bad I copied the wrong text, this was supposed to be:
"updated ref (and related tags) values of SR A1A in Broward County as consensus has been formed to use SR in ref's in Florida #Flo_FL->SR_convert"

my bad I copied the wrong text, this was supposed to be:
"updated ref (and related tags) values of SR A1A in Broward County as consensus has been formed to use SR in ref's in Florida #Flo_FL->SR_convert"

it does look like something is there so you should have kept the building, or at least tagged it as a wall or something else.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

This edit is incorrect, the merge lane was already mapped using tagging on the highway=motorway_link, encoding that with geometry makes the map worse by making it less useful.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

This edit is incorrect, the merge lane was already mapped using tagging on the highway=motorway_link, encoding that with geometry makes the map worse by making it less useful.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

Also is this trying to represent a Airbnb or Vrbo listing?

Happy mapping,
Udar

The address listed in this changeset does not match the address of the building it is within, can you please double check the address. You have also put "Apt" in the hoursenumber, from my understanding that should be a number without any characters.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

I have added the ref back as you have not responded with evidence that this is no longer a Florida state road and I my self (along with others I asked for help with this) could not find any such evidence.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

I already fixed the dragged node in changeset changeset/180224885 , that lead to this changeset disconnecting the road and rail lines from the level crossing vertex, I have fixed that in changeset changeset/180230668 .

Happy mapping,
Udar.

why is the frequency on all of these 0?

Happy mapping,
Udar.

This one also has a few dragged nodes and two duplicate buildings, next time if a building already exists but has an incorrect shape please update the shape of the building as opposed of adding a new one on top.

Happy mapping,
Udar

also why did you remove the amenity, website and phone tags from way way/295187753 as that website seems to still be up?

Happy mapping,
Udar

I will prefice this with this is a minor nit pick and you can feel free to ignore this but, when I first read this changeset comment (without knowing you are part of the amazon logistics team) I thought that this was a changeset where someone didnt like a turn lane or their router had told them to turn left when they wanted to turn right (or something similar) and was editing OSM to try and force the router to give them the instructions they wanted to "fix" that. Essentially something like "removed oneway" would have been clearer in my opinion as a changeset comment.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

Shouldn't the section of I95 that US 1 uses that SR 5 thus follows be tagged with the unsigned_ref of 5, so unsigned_ref=SR 9A;SR 5 . I ask as since the relation uses those ways, shouldn't they also be tagged as such.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

This changeset adds a duplicate business, next time edit existing features instead of adding a completely new business when one is already mapped. for more info see osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element .

Happy mapping,
Udar.