wazes data is proprietary to them, aka they haven't given us (open street map) the right to use their data and thus we can't use their data as a source for contributions to OSM. doesn't matter what shows up on waze unless they give us (open street map) the explicit right to incorporate parts of their data into OSM we cant use waze as a source for commits.

next time please leave a better change set comment, for more info see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments, also I doubt that diet:pizza is the correct tagging to use in this
case (for more info see diet:*=*); from what I can tell cuisine:pizza would be a better tag, for more info on that see cuisine=*

the opening_hours tagging here is done incorrectly for more info see opening_hours=*. also the change set comment doesn't really tell me what you've done in the commit, for more info see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

whats the source for this

I have looked at this changeset on OSMCha and this commit doesn't duplicate anything the way deleted in changeset/157835565 was elongated into that shape in changeset/157736989, so that duplicated isn't on me.

all I did in this commit was updated the alignment of a few roads and streams and adding bridges and culverts were necessary.

same issue on this changeset as in changeset/157817730.

same issue on this changeset as in changeset/157817730.

this added quite a few nodes that aren't connected to any way without any tags and I don't know if it's because of this commit but the multipolygon for lake mead (relation/1275469) has an unenclosed part. I understand this had to happen because of the vandalism and these issues are likely because like any other software osmtools isn't perfect, and I definitely not advocating for any future vandalism fixing to not happen. I'm just pointing the issue out so that someone with more knowledge on multipolygons and landuse than I can fix this. I noticed this and personally don't think I am knowledgeable and experienced enough to feel comfortable to do the required changes, I'm not 100% sure the exact details of what needs doing.

please stop marking sidewalk and crossings that don't have signs prohibiting bike use as not usable by bikes. I looked around the area with the bing streetside imagery and saw no signs specifying that bikes aren't allowed to cross there, please stop doing this. unless there are signs that specify that a certain use is prohibited that normally would be allowed it is implied that it is allowed as it is in this case.

sidewalks don't have names except for a few rare occasions and this isn't one of those occasions. for more info see the following wiki page osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions .

ignore the warnings:ambiguous_crossing:crossing_conflict they are from ways that are tagged correctly and Rapid wants to add implied tags on crossings; they are not ambiguous. aka crossing=uncontrolled & unmarked imply crossing:signals=no and crossing=crossing=traffic_signals implies crossing:signals=yes so I am not adding duplicated information.

ignore the warnings:ambiguous_crossing:crossing_conflict they are from ways that are tagged correctly and Rapid wants to add implied tags on crossings; they are not ambiguous. aka crossing=uncontrolled & unmarked imply crossing:signals=no and crossing=crossing=traffic_signals implies crossing:signals=yes so I am not adding duplicated information.

please respond

Agreed

Based on the latest aerial and street side imagery I doubt that this is private since there aren’t any gates anywhere on or leading to this road.

based on the latest aerial and streetside imagery (Bing both) there is one, please check with all the imagery before deleting a way next time.

this is incorrect as on the latest imagery there are service roads here so that track should been converted to serviced road not deleted.

I have pointed this out before, if there is not sign for whether or not bikes are allowed on a road (or sidewalk/crossing) it is implied to be access of the way. so in this case "bicycle=not designated" would be the same as bicycle=commercial since this road would likely be access=commercial. please stop doing this.

* and Southwest 84th Avenue

this is incorrect, if you look at the latest imagery (the Bing areal imagery) there is a small stub of road their meaning that likely after construction is complete on what ever their building on that lot there will be a service road there so as to maintain history we should keep that way until construction completes and extend it to the new aliment at that time.