Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. I think this should be good, but my only concern is that routing engines for non-HGV travellers will discourage or avoid routing along here. But I'm not sure about that. (I got burned a while ago when a big section of I-15 was accidentally marked HOV-only and I was routed around it.)
Also, is it just this one little section that's HGV designated, or is more of Redwood Road marked as such?

Can any other mappers comment on the routing thing?

That being said, I'm guessing Carto (the map at OpenStreetMap.org) may not render that tag. So if you still want to keep them on name then go for it. Like I said, the navigation scenario is a fairly minor downside.

Wow, I've somehow made it this far without knowing about ref_name! That seems like the perfect key for those.

Hmm, that's a thinker. I'm sure if you asked more mappers you'd get some that agree and some that disagree. I think my opinion is still that the name tag still should not be there. But it could go either way. Worst case scenario, someone types in one of these locations, accidentally selects the ballot box, and navigates to that instead. Which really wouldn't be bad much at all since they'd be right there anyway. For that reason, I think this is a pretty low-stakes question either way, so as the (I assume) local mapper you have the final say! Thanks again!

(Also, if anyone else is reading this, please do let us know your thoughts.)

Interesting questions. I'm not too experienced in tagging in this situation, but here are a couple thoughts from me:
- If you have accurate info, I'd suggest using drive_through={no, yes, only}. Looks like all three are used regularly: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/drive_through#values
- I would consider leaving out the name= on most of these. (Test: "Is this ballot box itself named Amboy Middle School?")
- I'd say amenity=polling_station, polling_station=ballot_box is the best way to represent these, so good job on that!
Just my thoughts. Thanks for your contributions!

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!

Is this really a residential road? It looks like a driveway to me. But I could be wrong.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good, the only issue I see is that an amenity feature like this shouldn't be represented by a corner of a building. It's best to just place the node inside the building (not touching the edge). I'll go ahead and fix that. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contribution!

Hi! 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 changes here. In this case, I'd suggest copying the address tags to nodes ("points") and leave them on the empty plots. Then remove the ways ("areas") you've marked as plots here. Keep in mind that the name tag is for actual common names, not descriptions: osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

Let me know if you have any questions. Or if you prefer I made the fixes I suggested, that's fine. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great to me! My rule of thumb is usually that a sidewalk is a foot path next to a thru street. So I think you're correct that this works great as a foot path. Thanks for your contribution!

Oops, I misplaced that semicolon. Should be
Mo-Th 11:00-21:00; Fr-Sa 11:00-22:00; Su 11:00-20:00

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks good, only minor issue is that there should be semicolons after each opening range in the hours. So it should be
Mo-Th 11:00-21:0;0 Fr-Sa 11:00-22:00; Su 11:00-20:00
instead. Opening_hours can be really tricky so I often use this tool to make sure I've got it right: https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/

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

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good generally, the only possible issue I see here is that if the complex could be considered to enclose the more general area (incl track, etc.) I might make that a separate outer area. As opposed to naming the soccer field as the complex. Looks like a good tag for the outer complex might be leisure=sports_centre, aka "Sports Center / Complex".
Let me know if you have any questions. 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, no complaints. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great! Only issue I can see is that the end of the path at Cimarron Drive (This node node/11590408454) shouldn't be tagged turning circle. (There is already a valid one placed just to the north.) Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks for your contributions!

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

Hi again. I looked over this changeset as well - Looks great! Thanks!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for your contribution. Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything looks great, except for one minor thing - it's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM tags. That's because it's easy for computers and data consumers to shorten names (road -> rd) when necessary, but can be problematic to expand them when the full thing is needed. Here's more info: osm.wiki/Abbreviations

I went ahead and fixed that. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for the valuable info!

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. here. Everything looks great to me. One extra tip is that you can specify that this Lucky's Market specifically is not the same as Lucky. This will help future mappers to not make the mistake of "upgrading" the tags incorrectly.
To do that in iD (the online OpenStreetMap.org editor) you can click "tag as not the same 'Lucky'" in the yellow warning box. Or, you can add the tag manually:
not:brand:wikidata=Q6698032

I went ahead and added that tag. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks again for the valuable info!