Hi,
Standard bike lanes, sharrows, etc. that area just part of the street are generally mapped with cycleway=* tags on the road, not drawn as a separate highway=cycleway way. The green bike stripe on 40th Street for example is really just a strange form of cycleway=shared_lane and was already correctly mapped.

It's hard to find a source for official boundaries when there aren't any. Neighborhoods are inherently informal, with fuzzy, overlapping, disputed boundaries. Oakland doesn't have a system of officially defined neighborhoods. There are some business improvement districts, unofficial neighborhood associations, etc, but that's not quite the same thing. Some maps have been created in the past that divide the city into areas for specific purposes but those aren't meant to be the same as actual on-the-ground neighborhoods.

Hi, why did you delete way/81376605/history ?

It's hard for people to tell what's been changed when you make edits all over the world in one changeset like this.

The change to way/421443244 at least was not correct - this is an actual building with seating stands on the roof.

Hi, welcome to openstreetmap.

If you want to indicate that there are no sidewalks on a segment of a street/highway you can use the tag sidewalk=no. foot=yes/no generally refers to the legal status, and pedestrians aren't actually prohibited from walking along a street without sidewalks under California or Alameda law.

Hi, thank you for your effort to map cycling infrastructure. Unfortunately, (or more like fortunately, in this case) these protected bikeways/cycle tracks were already mapped. I would suggest taking a look at the "CyclOSM" layer under "Map Layers" on the right side of the OpenStreetMap website to get a better idea of what's already been done. Bike lanes/etc are typically tagged as part of the roadway (especially in situations such as on Bancroft where the separation is mostly paint and parked cars and bikes can filter between lanes) and don't necessarily show up on the standard layer. You might also want to take a look at osm.wiki/Bicycle if you haven't already.

ps, there have been a few accounts active recently that appear to be affiliated with bikestreets.com. If you're working for/with them you should read osm.wiki/Organised_Editing and/or https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines or forward it to whoever is in charge of your project.

This doesn't look quite right; these are just ramps connecting the streetcar platforms to the crossing. There are no sidewalks.

Hi, fyi it looks like you broke the member ordering of the bus route relations when you split the way at way/1449954829 (it's been fixed)

Hi, fyi you broke the member ordering on the bus route relations here when you split the way. (it's been fixed)

Hi, fyi you broke the member ordering on a bus route relation when you split the way here. (it's been fixed)

Hi, fyi you broke the member ordering on a bus route relation here when you split Gateway Boulevard (relation/19701963). (it's been fixed)

Hi, fyi you broke the member order on a bus route relation (relation/9656915) here when you split the way. (it's been fixed)

Hi, fyi you broke the member order on a bus route relation here when you split the Ygnacio Valley Road way. (it's been fixed)

Hi, fyi you broke the member order on a few bus route relations here when you split the way. (it's been fixed)

source also includes Mapillary

Are you sure? Both these stops still show up on the AC Transit schedule.

This sidewalk was already mapped here: way/969998938

Hi, the building with it's address is already mapped here: way/1047709621

The building:part area you edited is just for osm.wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings

Hi, something went wrong here and in some of your (and @atticquilt 's, who it looks like you're working with?) other edits to San Pablo Ave. There were a bunch of random-looking segments of streets that were deleted here, and multiple overlapping crossing ways and sidewalks created over several changesets.
I reverted the most problematic changesets, but it seems like there's a problem in your mapping process somewhere.

Hi, a couple of things I noticed/fixed in this edit to watch out for in the future: 1-The crosswalk nodes were already mapped here, but you added some new ones directly adjacent instead of connecting the crossing way to the existing nodes. 2-This is a signal-controlled intersection, but you tagged the crossings as uncontrolled (or "traffic_signals;uncontrolled", which doesn't make any sense) instead of crossing=traffic_signals.