It looks like that small grass triangle has some monument in it?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123780189

Hello.
I noticed a number of other tomtom editors perform similar edits. Are they done purely for visual aspect or does this somehow affects routing?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123742577

Hello.
description= tag is intended to provide a brief information about a feature, it's not intended for promotional or advertising messaging(such as history of its founders). description=*
Also, it would be better if you tried to format phone numbers as documented in phone=*, ie separate them either with space or -, no ( ) symbols. 👍🙂
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123737014

Ah, you fixed it in the following edit. 👍🙂
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123700257

A gate the length of the whole block? That doesn't seem correct...🤔
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123700257

The way you mapped it is not wrong, just _in my opinion_ needlessly complicated. When making changes to features one have to remember to make some changes to the relation and some to the underlying ways..Sometimes when you delete a way it brakes the relation in some way, etc.. Where as if it were a single polygon with another way for a fence with gate nodes on it, it's straight forward to edit each.
Again it's not wrong to map it your way, just don't see the significant benefit of such added details vs the complexity that relations bring w/ them. 🙂

I don't remember seeing hinges and latches there. I'll go tomorrow to double check.
I've never seen this being used as a gate during any of the events I've ever been in the area. Not as an entrance nor exit. Likely originally when this whole area was being constructed they were planning to do it, but afaik it's never been used as gates. That whole section behind the fence is locked off. I've never seen anybody there.

Hello.
Is "Power line Grass Path" actually the name of this power line?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123670718

Also way/1078935696 is not a building but a ticket gate.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123672930

This is rather misleading edit creating all those ways. The whole area is a completely open space.

Also why did you remove all the cuisine tags from Nathans? It is what they serve taken directly from their menu signs.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123672930

Why did you map this as a relation?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123667929

Hello.
OSM can not contain space in them. In this case it should be "happy_hours".
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123666050

Hello.
As documented on abandoned=*: the use of "abandoned=yes" is discouraged, and it stead it better to use abandoned: lifecycle prefix. It would be great if you updated these tags.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123656479

I'm in Brooklyn.
I thought that healthcare=laboratory wasn't intended for publicly accessible locations, but I was wrong. According to healthcare=laboratory your edit is fine.

If you know the location of each section, you could consider mapping them as well like in this cemetery way/1067214883
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123628793

Generally roads inside of public cemeteries have "access=permissive", ie anybody is welcome unless you get kicked out.
access=permissive. And often it's also "bicycle=no", although maybe not in every case.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123628544

Based on your photo this seems more like a pop-up covid testing facility or an urgent care office rather than a medical laboratory?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123628526

Hello.
Am I misunderstanding what was done or did you delete a few seemingly correct relations here?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123604536

A concern is for visually impaired people that might be using navigation software and it would tell them to cross here where there's no crosswalk and seems like densely parked cars on both sides...
For people with normal vision they should be able to figure out that routing is taking them on a loop and decide to either keep following the directions or jaywalk across if they feel it's safe.

As you can see from the link and article's text, for now it's still not an accepted tag. For whatever reason it's still in the "proposal" phase.

Also semantically speaking this doesn't make sense. Sidewalks are already mapped here as separate ways and pedestrians are not allowed on the road ways, there's no logical sense to connect these 2 segments. From what I see on the satellite imagery, there's no crosswalk here, so it wouldn't be correct to direct people to cross the road here. Navigation software shouldn't have any issues directing people between sidewalk and that overpass.