Seems you still talk about the name of the relation. I am talking about the name of the ways, e.g. way/186857367

Hi Aston,
thanks for the quick answer. I don't doubt that the route exists, what I don't believe is that the ways that make up the route all have the same name. I think they are sidewalks of roads which have a name and thus those sidewalks either have no name or the name of the major road, but probably not the name of a route relation.

Hi! Please review: all buildings have the same housenumbers 17-19 without a addr:street.
Looks like a copy+paste error.

Hi!
You changed this road from trunk to secondary, but not the next parts in the west. Why not?

Hi and welcome to OSM!
You mapped a small part of a highway here as highway=unclasswified. The correct spelling is unclassified but this road is rather a highway=residential. I've connected it to the next major road and also added some nodes in the north. Please review my changes:
changeset/64068189
Hope this helps, happy mapping!

Hi and welcome to OSM!
I've noticed this changeset because of the typo highway=unclassifed. The correct spelling is unclassified (two i)
I think most of them are in fact highway=path or highway=residential and
some are not connected. A good sample for an unclassified road is way/333507120 because it is the way to the next residential area.
See also highway=*
Hope this helps, happy mapping!

Hi!
I've noticed the way with typo highway=unclassfied , the correct spelling would be unclassified (two i). Anyway, the way was not connected to other roads, so I've downgraded it to track. See highway=*

Hi! Why did you change layer=1 to highway=1 here way/242359727 ?
Was it intended?

Hi! I wonder if "Parramatta Liverpool Cycleway" really is the name of those ways. My understanding is that this is or was the name of the route relation, not the sidewalks. In other words, I'd like to remove the name from the ways. What do you think?

You are right, it seems that you only split a way that was already tagged name=Parramatta Liverpool Cycleway
Still, I don't think that the way(s) should be named like this. I'll try to find the initial mapper...

OK, thanks for the feedback :-)

OK, I've also removed the highway=crossing tags from the node, see changeset/64056131

Hi!
I've noticed some ways tagged as highway=escalator. Did you know the tag conveying? See conveying=*
The ways are not connected to the road network, so they will probably not help for routing, see e.g. way/507362405

Hi! I wonder if "Parramatta Liverpool Cycleway" really is the name of those ways. My understanding is that this is the name of the route relation, not the sidewalks.

Hi! You mapped a lot of sidewalks here as separate ways. Some of them end without a connection to the major road like here:node/4062814617
Are you aware of the tag sidewalk=* which makes it much easier to map sidewalks?
See sidewalk=*

Hi!
I've noticed that you changed a lot of ways here so that they are all named Constitution Trail. My understanding is that the ways should be combined in one or more route relations with this name.
Did you consider this?

I still think that you should have the tags on the way, I don't know if we need the relation at all. See osm.wiki/Tag%3Aroute%3Dpipeline

Hi! I've cone
I wonder if the Salt Creek Trail relation/72664 should be a continous route or if it is just a collection of cycleways. At the moment there are a few gaps and also a few ways which may not be not part of the rel (e.g. way/46426451) . Do you know more?

Hi!
Are you sure that the name of these ways is "Salt Creek Greenway Trail" ?
They are all members of a route relation called "Salt Creek Trail", so the ways probably don't have an own name, esp. not where they are sidewalks of major roads.

Hi! Please review highway=crossing used on ways around the roundabout, e.g. way/625803919
The ways should be tagged highway=footway + footway=crossing
and maybe further tags like crossing=island and the access tags like bicycle=yes where appropriate.