segregated would mean bicycle and pedestrian traffic is separated.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170558297

Not that a bicycle should be on the sidewalk in the first place anyway for the same reason cars and motorcycles shouldn't.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170614182

Phone numbers in OSM use ITU.123 format.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170495630

Please use the presets next time. Also, the description field, along with every other field in OSM, is an inappropriate venue for advertising copy.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170486120

Testify.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170410452

Looks like it's already being used.

Parkling lot should probably be operator=Farwest access=private instead.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170271320

Looks like this reduced the quality of data available, the data that was there before was more accurate and has been since it opened. Contact Tesla with issues with quality and timeliness with their snapshot.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170032803

Hi there! Thanks for pointing that out. 156 is indeed open through there now (and this is why I try to use opening dates when I tag construction when possible).

Was a bit confused, apparently TIGER imported the V Street name. I made it match the segments north and south since that seems far more likely.

Now that I'm in front of an editor that visualizes lanes correctly (JOSM does this), I was able to fix it correctly.

Is South still the prefix?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169690457

Be sure to make sure you're not affecting lane tagging when changing ways like this.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164321942

Restriction already implied by access=no on crossover.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164461563

Turn restriction already implied by access=no on crossover.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164492939

Turn restriction already implied by access=no on crossover.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164492939

I'd also appreciate a more reasonable answer than the same template you've used as three other people now. Human intelligence is required here.

OK, now go back and look at your edit, and explain to me which lane is closed and which lane is a turn lane. I'm not sure if you don't know what a lane is or if you didn't care at all how geometry works, because you got all of it wrong.

In this case, it's not inconsistent with the wiki. The turn lanes apply to the ends of the way, if there's a split where the lanes don't apply for that direction, then turn:lanes is removed from the way where those no longer apply. There needs to be an intersection at the end of the way for the turn:lanes tag to be relevant or consumed correctly by existing software.

Thanks for the suggestion, we've tried that and it doesn't work. I recommend you at least use an editor that visualizes the changes you're making, trying to edit lanes in id is really only for GIS professionals and Lyft's skill level is more "first time editor that never learns".

Available street level imagery shows no such restriction, though it is older. Could you please provide the updated imagery?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164812556