Nice edit, but the changeset comment could use a little work to at least give a ballpark idea of what's going on.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131510629

might have meant place=neighborhood?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131630495

Can we get some descriptive information in your changeset comments instead of swearing?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131502170

Is this a new dedicated cycleway or is it an on-street lane?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130706053

You might consider drawing the two halves seperately, and draw another outline around the neighborhood filling the donut hole. Then combine the three areas as a multipolygon. I think that's the c key (it's the same as to combine two lines end to end). That should create a multipolygon for the golf course that excludes the street and the neighborhood, reflecting the landuse of the golf course area itself. Adding highway=path to lines added for the paths can visually represent that connection.

Did you intent to make this one polygon including an entire neighborhood and part of the street separating the two halves?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130042874

Should be separated with ; instead of /
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129922983

I'm not sure the change you made was the one you expected to make. What was the goal here?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129922949

Maybe for continuity but not for conflation! At some point someone's gonna have to get some proper legal descriptions for a lot of the boundaries around metro Tulsa and conflate them properly. Biggest hassle is working out where the line is on the property edges along the street and where the line falls along the center of a road, since it varies, a lot, and with not much consistency.

Fully aware of that, it's also an extremely long and twisted boundary to try to sort out and it's been mostly broken since import.

Please don't move onramps downstream of where they actually come together and exits upstream. The junction node should be next to the end of the painted split on the pavement.

Which Tulsa (city or county)?

I would expect both are pretty bad right now, and I've been trying to get it sorted but boundaries in Oklahoma are quite complex. I've been untangling boundaries as I map other things in the area because it's really the only way to not go insane at this point.

Looked up Heavener's municipal code (which actually had a pretty decent description of their local speed limits) and updated based off that and a better understanding of who controls which roads than I had 5 years ago. Not my highest quality work, I had about 20 minutes over breakfast before leaving to go to work.

Inside an incorporated city, it's probably safe to remove the default speed limit, though as the code is written, that would be the case if the town doesn't have something lower within the county.

Is there a specific town you have in mind?

Anyrate, sorry for the goof, thanks for the catch.

OK, looks like it was a clean copy and transform missing the relation, so this *should* be fixed in changeset/128060909

My confusion was definitely the buried lede, copying US 81 to the southwest was definitely not my intention.

You're right, I didn't see it until you pointed out the Lake Ellsworth giveaway. I'm fairly certain this goof was limited to just the pasted version, but I'm doublechecking.

Double white solid lines would mean no lane changes...and even then there's change:lanes=*...

Also seems a lot of junctions got moved to be too early on the exits and too late on the entrances, the junction should be next to the tip of the painted gore on the road.

Or, rather, outward from the median on both sides, since I see the westbound side got moved too.