For the hundredth time, highway=motorway does NOT indicate a road's importance in the network! Quoting Joseph RP from earlier, "the freeway section of the 93 Business loop is only tagged [as] a motorway for its physical characteristic rather than its importance, and would be a primary road itself if it weren't built up to freeway standards between I 11 and VM [Veterans Memorial] Drive." That's why I tagged with highway:motorway=primary. If you really wanted to, you could ditch highway=motorway entirely and replace it with motorway=yes (and highway=primary), but I don't recommend doing this until the community reaches a consensus (Spoiler alert: it hasn't—yet).

highway=motorway does NOT indicate a road's role in the network. Rather, it's applied based on physical characteristics. All of these roads (plus Rancho Drive between Rainbow Blvd and Ann Rd, for some reason, according to Wikipedia) are controlled-access highways: There are no at-grade intersections or pedestrian crossings (except at the very end), and the speed limit is high (~60 mph), so all of these would be tagged as highway=motorway.

Okay, I just looked at them, and I guess that makes sense. But what should be done about the routing mistakes ("turn right" onto Boulder City Parkway)?

...which is why I reverted this changeset (along with a few others)

Reverted changesets 173472314, 173479852, 173501716, 173502305, 173502568, 173503941, and 173504156

Still broke roads

changeset/173504156

I simply downloaded the Las Vegas relation using JOSM's "Download object" function. Per OSM's "Keep the history" rule, I used Ctrl + Shift + G to replace the old boundaries with the new ones, while preserving the history. (Maybe I'll disconnect the boundaries from the roads first.)

Neither of your scenarios are the case here. The road segment still exists, even if basically no one uses it anymore. Older maps of this area showed that Brandywine Way was connected to Lorenzi Street via this highway segment. However, the former's western terminus was moved from the latter to a cul-de-sac (dead end), where it remains today.
As mentioned before, the statement "The street does not exist anymore" is false; therefore, any other statements dependant on this one are irrelevant. Carto doesn't render it (presumably because it's tagged with `disused:highway`=*), but if you go to this location on any map service that provides satellite imagery, you too will see that the road still exists.
Also, there's this expression used in OSM: "Any tags you like."

Hello, please do not change "street:old_name" to "old_name." street:name refers to the name of an associated street of, say, a sidewalk. According to old maps of the area, the associated street was part of Brandywine Way. However, you tagged the footpath as "old_name=Brandywine Way," which is incorrect. See osm.wiki/key:street:name for more information.
So, then, with the street itself being tagged as "old_name=Brandywine Way," a natural extension/interpolation would be to tag the surrounding footpath as "street:old_name." Thanks!

changeset/173459509

Hello, why did you create a tertiary road (Discovery Bluff) that doesn't link to any tertiary (or higher) roads?

I also used the website provided. Basically, this node with barely any tags attached to it was moved to its proper location, so I added an address. I used Google Maps for those two, but I used the website (which is uh, interesting to say the least) for everything else.

I looked at it more closely using Bing Maps, and I couldn't find one. As a result, I removed the tag entirely.

I would do that, if not for the fact that names have a character limit (I read that from somewhere on the wiki).

See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/edits-to-name-tags-of-ecuador-relation/136829

changeset/173255056

Hello. I have reverted your edits because they were based on outdated aerial imagery sources. These buildings were part of a middle school that moved one block north. I've been to these sites in person, and you can verify these changes for yourself by using Clark County's GIS, OpenWeb, as a source: https://maps.clarkcountynv.gov/openweb/?@759271,26763777,6 (these pictures are as of September 9, 2025, whereas Bing's is before at least 2025).

changeset/173236256

"there are English-language speakers (as learned language) outside this countries, far more than Russian-language speakers (as learned language)"
How many of these L2 English speakers reside INSIDE Europe, but OUTSIDE of the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta?

"Now count the amount of ESL speakers and compare THESE to people who know Russian (first AND secondary lang) in Europe."
Some European countries that have lots of Russian speakers (L1 + 2) are Ukraine and Belarus. Basically, imagine any former republic of the USSR in Europe, and they're likely to have at least European speakers. How could we count these L1+2 Russian and English speakers?

I checked the history of the changed way, and it turns out that the street _does_ have a bus bay, and I used aerial imagery to determine which side(s) of it the bus bay is on.

I counted speakers in geographically-defined Europe. This means I included speakers of Russian in European Russia but excluded English speakers in the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Oceania (since they're not part of Europe). Under THAT metric, there are more Russian speakers, since Russia (even only including European Russia) has more people than the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta combined (European countries that speak English).

Okay. Then explain the fixme requests that I tried to, you know, fix? (I feel like it can't be both ways.)

I've already stated my concerns and objections to their removal; please read above to find them. Thanks.