can you explain why you have decided that the aeroway, track, and driveway are all also part of "Yukon Circle"?

This section was already correctly tagged as disused:highway, it really shouldn't be readded as highway=residential.

node/13256989960

You dragged a power line across the highway here. Let me know if you need help fixing this.

Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contributions!

Since this bay is (perhaps incorrectly?) mapped inside the coastline, I think this stopped the water area from rendering

please don't add nonexistent road segments, even with access=no

also, can you explain what adding the `ref=CR 180` to the sidewalk is intended to convey?

Adding the road name to this driveway seems a bit odd. Can you explain why you have made this change?

Please don't add features that don't exist. If you feel like it is helpful to clarify that things have been removed that are still available on imagery, use a lifecycle prefix:

osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Unless something has changed recently, this definitely still seems more like a service road than a residential road. What motivated this change (and the name addition)?

Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contributions!

Please write a short changeset comment describing the change you made - it helps other contributors understand the edits you make.

osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping!

hello, and welcome back to OSM! You seem to be changing a lot of cycleways from `cycleway:*=separate` to `cycleway:*=track`. Could you explain what you are trying to accomplish with these edits?

When cycleways are tagged as a separate way, we use =separate on the road to indicate that.

cycleway=separate

did you mean to remove barrier=kerb from every node in this changeset?

this edit was reverted by @greatnameguys2472 in changeset/181605572

you are adding access=no and foot=no to roads. This is meant for legal restrictions only, not for the suitability of the road for that use case. My understanding is that you are allowed to walk on the feeder road in Texas, unless there is a sign stating otherwise. Is that the case here?

This edit looks good to me.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182397552

why are Shiloh Road and Tar Road access=no?

reverted

changeset/181597420

reverted

changeset/181597420

These aren't visible on the imagery you used, so is it safe to assume these don't exist yet?
If you are mapping proposed segments, please don't map them as highway=motorway + access=no.

This also breaks routing from NB I 474 to the actual motorway, because you put an access=no segment in the middle of it.

Are you on the citystrides forum?
https://community.citystrides.com/

While I don't use the software, I know that James is very active and helpful when it comes to fixing this sort of issue on his end. Since these were already access=private, they were tagged correctly. I encourage you to make a post on the CityStrides forum to figure out how this particular situation should be dealt with.