please review,
way/344892887 now has the invalid tag
highway=unclassified;track

please review:
some ways with
name=Via Paipo
have the invalid tag
highway=unclassified;track

bitte prüfen:
1) way/331106512 hat ungültige tags wie
highway=unclassified;track
surface=asphalt;grass
Bitte evtl. Weg splitten
2) Garmin ist als Quelle Tabu, sofern Du damit nicht aufgezeichnete GPS meinst ;-)

please review:
is it intended that the trunk 4 is
overlapping a highway=residential?
See e.g. way/327821192,way 324503577

sorry, forgot to thank you for that hint reg. Geobase

thanks for the feedback. Would you mind
to update the data to the current situation?
I can't see it in Bing

bitte die Änderung an
way/33144475 prüfen.

please review:
way/253360741 has
highway=unclassified;tertiary

please review:
the way now has the invalid tag
highway=unclassified;tertiary

please review (again): The roads still have
highway=unclassified;tertiary
surface=unpaved;paved

Okay, verstehe ich.
Ich analysiere zur Zeit die vielen Varianten
von highway tags, die alle irgendwie aussagen, daß da "kein Weg" ist.
Es gibt disused, none, obsolete,planned,proposed,no,razed,dummy,unbuilt,dismantled,prepoposed,proposal, ...
Ich denke, hier besteht Verbesserungsbedarf.

I've recently changed a few like that,
see e.g.
changeset/34637134
I think the ways are residential roads,
but I'll remove the name tag

I have no idea about the names, I found some similar tags in taginfo.
In many cases, one has used
highway=xyz instead of
highway=residential + name=xyz
Looking at the picture in your reply
I guess it is okay to assume that these
are not names, but the result of a messed up import
im

please review:
Why do we have ways with
highway=unbuilt ?

please review:
what does a tag like
highway=rd no.6
mean?

please review uncommon tagging of
way/325743058

please review, I've changed
way/34256966 to
highway=residential
name=12th Avenue

please review:
natural=bare_rocks is uncommon,
probably should be
natural=rock or natural=bare_rock

you are not the only one with this problem, see
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/iD-creates-invalid-highway-tags-tt5856854.html

maybe you can add a boundary polygon for the postal code instead?
See
postal_code=*