whats your source for this?

the Consulate General of Israel seems to still be there and this still leaves multiple tags that point to the Consulate General of Israel still there; this also duplicates the existing Consulate General of Germany, why did you do this.

Bing street side in the area is multiple years out of date while Esri and Miami dade county latest area significantly more up to date. This is due to construction in the area, for more info see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p__df2Kvuk , https://www.fdotmiamidade.com/okeechobee and https://okeechobeeprojectmap.com/ . As a final note passed the intersection with HEFT the work the Lyft team has done in the area is more accurate then the imagery, once the Miami dade county latest updates (likely in August with imagery from December) I will do another pass through the area cleaning up what every needs it to be best of my ability).

names are not supposed to be used as descriptions, for more info see:
osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Crossings should only be mapped as separate geometry when there is a distinguishable difference across the section of way being considered to be split into a separate crossing way. In this case, as the sidewalk is completely straight across the section and there is no other (in pattern, surface, or other) significant difference across the section of sidewalk so it should not be split. Normal crossings get split as they differ greatly from the sidewalk sections they connect to. In this case, it is very clear that this is a sidewalk that a road happens to cross, where the road is brought to the same level as the sidewalk. Also, this is a spot where vehicles cross a pedestrian traffic way which, essentially the opposite of normal crossings where pedestrians cross vehicle ways; we don't have a proper way to map that currently.
As I previously pointed out, the sidewalk is very obviously continuous across the whole area, both on aerial and (most importantly) on the latest (in the area) street side imagery, this means that it is a sidewalk that the road intersects, not a separate crossing way. The road does technically cross there, so there is a highway=crossing tag on the vertex where the sidewalk and road meet, and nothing else, as there isn't a tag (something like crossings=vehicle) that clarifies that this is a spot where vehicles cross pedestrians compared to the normal pedestrian crossings vehicles. Again, that sidewalk is very clearly one continuous object along the center line of the sidewalk, so no splits should be done.

please stop splitting the crossings as separate geometry here as it is not, if you look at the bing streetside in the area you will clearly see that the sidewalk continues through the crossing and thus is not separate geometry. Its not even like the sidewalk lowers to the road level, the sidewalk level on either side is the exact same, this is very clearly a single continuous sidewalk, so please stop splitting this way.

please stop splitting the crossings as separate geometry here as it is not, if you look at the bing streetside in the area you will clearly see that the sidewalk continues through the crossing and thus is not separate geometry. Its not even like the sidewalk lowers to the road level, the sidewalk level on either side is the exact same, this is very clearly a single continuous sidewalk, so please stop splitting this way.

forgot to put in the changeset comment that this was only for the ground floor.

I undid this in changeset/165738146 as I could not tell if this is even under construction yet and thus it shouldn't be in OSM yet.

from what I can tell this, if it has even started construction wont open until 2028 so it should be tagged as construction.

question, does your business take up the whole building the point you added is in or are there other businesses in there with you, aka is your business the only one inside of q=way way/435519095 .

whats your source for removing the address from way way/435238907 .

why did you add turn:lanes tagging to vertex node/7085335815 as it is a crossing vertex and I don't think turn:lanes is supposed to be on crossing vertexes, if I'm missing something here feel free to correct me.

Happy mapping,
Udar.

forgot to add to the source tag on the changeset that I went to the Patricia and Phillip Frost Museum of Science last June so in the source tag there should also have survey.

why did you move the address node/6057551973 to the middle of the road, and the name you added to the building, what type of business is it.
Further reviewing the streetside imagery around the building there seems to be multiple businesses in that building so are you sure that that is the name of the building as it may just be one business within it, aka what is your source for this commit.

the name tag on SR 19 was removed from way/17448431 way back in 2011 with commit changeset/8132573 , why did you add it back as the ref=SR 19 is seemingly enough.

whats the source for this as you have been adding allot across the country

what no longer exists from this commit, this touched several businesses which one are you talking about.

whats the source for this commit as the website of the car dealership has keywords in it added by google maps and we are not allowed to use them as a source for commits due to license issues.

this is incorrect as the arrivals service road is clearly tagged as being on level=0 and the footway on level=0. The values of the levels in this case are correct so they should not share a vertex as they are on different levels and thus cannot be navigated from one to the other directly.