Did you realise that the road you connected does not exist in reality?
Not on bing, which you claim you have used, nor on any other imagery?

It was fiction created by another user. You just made the revert more difficult.

You did not what you say in the CS comment.
You deleted existing new roads, because they did not show up on the olde ESRI imagery you were using.
They are clearly visible in the Maxar or Bing imagery.

Reverted.

reverted in 101457784

What kind of driver feedback is that edit based on?

In fact, some other user invented fictive roads, and you edited them further.

DWG Ticket#2021032110000101

Santa Claus Lane - really?

Dear yadathot,

another user had created fictive roads in this area. They are not visible on any of the imagery you have given.

Example: "Fantasia Gardens Drive (862772966, v2)"

Now you have edited these fictive ways and set 'access=private'. What is the source of that edit? How can a road that does not exist be private?

Fiction, does not match Bing as claimed nor any other available imagery.
DWG Ticket#2021032110000101

Fiction, does not match Bing as claimed nor any other available imagery.
DWG Ticket#2021032110000101

Fiction, does not match Bing as claimed nor any other available imagery.
DWG Ticket#2021032110000101

Dear namprati,
I see you still juggling with highway tags, and using the "type" key wich alone means nothing and should not be used with ways, e.g.
way/918086614

For your university campus, please use:
- highway=service when cars can use it
- highway=footway for normal footways where people walk
- highway=pedestrian for wider ways where no cars are allowed

Do not use "type=pedestrian".

Hallo wurzelast,

ich verstehe einiges an dem CS nicht:
- warum löschst du Adressen (der Titel hier is "fix addresses" - was für ein Fix ist eine Löschung?), z.B. way/87406685, way/188085809, node/6051158988, way/888279540
- warum nimmst du die amenity-Tags vom Umring der Feuerwehr und reduzierst sie auf eine Node? Wir wollen eigentlich zu den Details des Campus, nicht zurück zur Node.

Viele Grüsse

"minor random adjustments" is not a helpful description of your intentions for other mappers.

This CS was fully reverted in 99621725
where the comment is:
US: revert graffti/vandalism from changeset/94712787 94367853 94315606
DWG Ticket #202102191000019994307928

This CS was fully reverted in 99621725
where the comment is:
US: revert graffti/vandalism from changeset/94712787 94367853 94315606
DWG Ticket #202102191000019994307928

This CS was fully reverted in 99621725
where the comment is:
US: revert graffti/vandalism from changeset/94712787 94367853 94315606
DWG Ticket #202102191000019994307928

This CS was fully reverted in 99621725
where the comment is:
US: revert graffti/vandalism from changeset/94712787 94367853 94315606
DWG Ticket #202102191000019994307928

Hi namprati,
there is no "natural=grassland" within a city.
Use landuse=grass and landcover=grass.

Hi namprati,
why are you removing the 'highway' tags from the service roads?
You just leave "type=pedestrian", which is meaningless alone, and an unusual tagging anyway.
Without the highway tag, you lose the connection of the campus to the road network.

@user_5359 - no worries. I added half the street's shops now from mapillary to proof the location, and restore the original node:
changeset/98927511
@DRAD user, please read osm.org/user_blocks/4745 before you continue. It explains again what you are welcome to do, and what not.
As for location, there is strong evidence that it is where I put it. You can help verifying it by taking geo-referenced pictures and uploading it to open streetview platforms such as Mapillary.

Thanks. Even further improved by fellow mappers fixing my own address typos. ;-)