Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your addition here. Looks great to me! For your business to show up, it needs to be added as a feature. If you haven't already, I recommend going through the tutorial for editing online. Or if you prefer, you can provide the details of your business here or in a note and I can just add it for you.
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. In this case, I think the service road should still be connected, even if it isn't accessible by the public. I say that because the roads do still connect. Instead of disconnecting it, I'd say we should add access tags to the gate and/or service road. Something like access=private or similar. Hopefully that makes sense. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great, no complaints. Thanks for your contribution!

Gotcha, cool. I added a bridge tag to the McClintock ones to match the road, and merged and extended some nearby.

Just a side note that the license for Google Street View and Maps isn't compatible with OSM, so we shouldn't use them for improving OSM. Fortunately there are alternatives that are appropriately licensed such as Mapillary and Bing Streetside. You can enable these in iD, they're under "map data" -> "Photo Overlays".

I can't link to it in iD (openstreetmap editor) but here's the relevant Bing image for the sidewalk I deleted: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=33.435803%7E-111.909829&lvl=17.0&v=2&sV=1&pi=1.3&style=x&dir=89.1

The only sidewalk I removed is the one along Red Mountain Freeway (the one going east-west). Is that the one you're referring to?
The other ones, such as along McClintock Drive, I agree with you that they're real, and I didn't remove them.

Hi, I changed sport=club to leisure=fitness_centre. It should show up on osm.org now. (You may have to clear your cache - press ctrl+F5 to do so.)

Nice fix! Thanks for your contributions.

I went ahead and fixed the issues here.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! I'm not sure what specifically the warning you got was, but I didn't see any real problems with your addition. Here are some possibilities though... (none of these apply here, as far as I can tell)

- "Routable features" like foot paths, roads, etc. should generally be connected to one another to be useful. That means a "floating" feature or group of features isn't very useful for routing.
- If features overlap or cross: They should either be connected in real life like a crossing across a road, or they should be tagged as tunnel/bridge etc. as appropriate.

Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great to me, except the house=* tag. In this case, instead of adding the unconventional value converted_church_and_add_on, that info is best for a description tag. (which you nicely added!)
A bit of a related side note, OpenStreetMap has a principle called "any tags you like", where technically you can make up any tag you want to describe a feature. But, general good practice is to use existing established conventions for describing things if at all possible. That's why in this case, in my opinion, that value for house= is not appropriate. I went ahead and removed it.

Let me know if you have any questions or objections, and thanks for your contributions!!

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me, no issues! Thanks for your contributions.

Hello again! (I've been going through your changesets for which you requested review.) In this one, that "extra line" you removed was part of the administrative boundary [1] for Tanasbourne. Even if a feature has no tags, it might be part of a multipolygon or other relation. [2]
Fortunately, in this case it was easy to restore, which I just took care of. Arguably you were following the OSM good practice of "be bold". :)

Let me know if you have any questions about that, and thanks for your contributions!!

[1] More info on admin boundaries: osm.wiki/Tag%3aboundary=administrative

[2] More info on multipolygons: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks good to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me - no complaints! Thanks for your contribution to the map.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me, no complaints! Local knowledge/in-person observations are super valuable for situations like this.
Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no issues! Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. There are some issues here - mainly descriptive names. That means we should only use the name tag for the official or common name of a feature. In this case, it looks like you're wanting to prevent people from accessing this area. My suggestion for that would be to use access tags to mark the roads as private. Looks like that's already done!
Let me know if you have any questions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me - no issues. Thanks for your contributions!