But it is still wrong. Either it must be marked as layer=-1 if you *KNOW* it's there as a culvert, else it should be deleted as building on top of canals. Do you know if it's now a culvert?

Derelict means bad condition not historical, And since the canal simply is no longer seen in imagery, it's a candidate for deletion. Therefore it should be removed and perhaps placed on OpenHistoricalMap so people know it used to exist here.

Well this is the beauty of having an unmarked crossing here: this is a legitimate place to cross, and since it is unmarked, the person when they get here should choose the safest way for themselves and usually they would walk up the street a little, cross, and get back on the sidewalk, and yes it may involve a little grass traversal.

There appears to be a curb lowering there, despite dumping people so close to memorial avenue, but it implies that people have the option of crossing there. Else there would be no concrete connecting the path to the road on the southwest corner of that intersection.

discussion at changeset/138677566

In fact I think it's less safe for someone to be forced to cross memorial avenue and back - just because you don't want to put an unmarked crossing there.
I'm still waiting for a good reason why it shouldn't - which at this point would be a sign there that says "pedestrians may not cross here".

However this is a 2 lane entrance to a school of which people should be watching for kids and hence adults who would be trespassing the school which is more of problem for school security. So i still think, unless there's a no pedestrians sign which I highly doubt, that this SHOULD be added for routing purposes.

If someone was walking along the north west side of memorial avenue is the expectation to trespass in the school to avoid a "ensured death" unmarked intersection? Please respond.

I don't think this is a valid reason - there's a chance for death while attempting any crossing wherever it may be.

https://kdvr.com/video/park-hill-to-stay-a-golf-course/8760072/

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/park-hill-golf-course-will-remain-golf-course-denver-voters-vote-no-2o/

Ugh, will it or will it...

I'd say don't worry about adding a fixme for names, there are a lot of waterways with no name and it's easily flagged as such by computer anyway, just need to do a query on all waterways without a name tag ...

Hi, as for our osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions the name of "CR 1" should be spelled out "County Road 1" or in this case, the acceptable ref of "CR1" is sufficient to designate the road and the name left blank.

Hi, as for our naming convention in osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions the designator "Ln" should be spelled out as "Lane."

hello, as for our naming osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions the "name" probably should be spelling out "CR 1" to "County Road 1". The "ref" as "CR 1" is okay to remain abbreviated.

Please do not do test edits to the map, people depend on the accuracy of the data. This will be reverted.

This appears to be fictional mapping. Please refrain from making such changes to the map.

Welcome to OSM!
It looks like someone already got to it and removed the name, but as a learning experience, when we draw things, we don't add so called "generic" names to a feature like naming a basketball court "Basketball" - it's redundant. Again don't worry about it, someone already took care of it, but just wanted to let you know why it changed and what the best practices are.
Keep on drawing!

Hi,
Some anonymous person left a note at note/3695499 pointing me that your edit ended up drawing a road on top of another road. This can cause routers to get confused. It looks like you were trying to perhaps upgrade Willow Pass from secondary to primary? Could you run this by others in the area whether this should be upgraded (I am not from the area) - but the overlapping road will need to be fixed soon... Thanks.

Hi, thanks for joining OpenStreetMap!
I would have to make the comment that we shouldn't be putting temporary or unmarked-on-ground objects in the map. It clutters things especially if it becomes disused due to abandonment of these temporary things and people forget about it, leading to a lot of confusion and junk on the map.

Hi, in note note/3690682 there was a lot of violations that showed up in this changeset, as I'm not local I have to rely on imagery and this road does not appear to be dual carriageway for the whole length. Was this changed recently beyond the available satellite imagery?