Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes here. Everything looks great overall! Here are a couple of suggestions:
- highway=pedestrian is typically used for wide walkways that are sort of arteries for foot traffic (such as on a university campus.) In this case, I think highway=path and informal=yes would be best. (Your editor may show that as "Informal Path". The reason I think so is that it looks like this is a small foot path that isn't officially maintained.
- In OSM, we generally want to avoid abbreviations. That's because it's easy for computers to shorten a word (place -> pl.) but there can be some problems when doing the opposite.

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

Yep, it's showing up! Looks good.

您好，欢迎来到 OpenStreetMap！ 由于您请求审核，我在这里查看了您的更改。 总的来说，事情看起来不错，但这里有一些建议：
- 如果有人可以从一个要素移动到另一个要素，则通常应该将道路和小径等要素连接起来。 在这种情况下，这意味着将路径连接到道路。
- 名称标签只能用于某事物的通用名称，而不是描述该功能。 所以对于这条小路来说，可能应该没有名字。 （highway=path 已经表明它是一条路径。）
如果您有任何疑问，请告诉我，感谢您的贡献！ （机器翻译）

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Things generally look good, but here are a couple of suggestions:
- Features such as roads and paths should generally be connected if someone could move from one to another. In this case, that means connecting the path to the road.
- The name tag should only be used for the common name of something, not to describe the feature. So for this trail, there probably should be no name. (highway=path already shows that it's a path.)
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Re: removal of these unofficial trails, were you able to check them in person? Just because something doesn't appear on some other map doesn't mean it's necessarily non-existent in reality. They might still be there and simply need an informal=yes tag.
Let me know what you think. And thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just want to say thanks for your contributions to the map. Everything's lookin great!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your recent changes. Everything looks great to me overall! One minor issue is that there were some "almost-connections". If someone could continue from one path to another, or from a path to a road, etc., you should connect the lines so that they share a node. That way routing software knows that it's possible to continue through that junction. Does that make sense? 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. Everything seems great to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions.

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

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no complaints from me! Thanks for your contribution.

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great! In-person observations are an excellent source for OSM edits. Thanks for your contribution!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Looks great overall! The only issue I see is that individual land parcels are generally out of scope of OSM. Therefore, in this case, I recommend making sure the address and outline of the house is correct without mapping the outer area of your land. As you've done it, it looks like there's a huge building taking up the whole area since it's tagged building=yes still. :)
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 recent changes here. Looks great overall! One suggestion is that in OSM, we generally discourage "backyard mapping". That is, mapping micro-details that aren't accessible to the public (like adding benches, trees, etc. in one's backyard). In general, I suggest only adding names to buildings where it might be useful to others.
Let me know if that makes sense. Thanks for your contributions!

Looks great! Nice.

Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great! One suggestion is that since there's no northbound access to 273, and since 273 is represented by 2 separate ways, we can just remove the NB connecting piece altogether. I went ahead and did that.
Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your change here. Looks great! The only suggestion I have is to add a tag describing the category of this feature. Looks like another mapper (jmarchon) came through and added healthcare=psychotherapist.

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. Looks great! The only issue I saw is that Ash Springs Apartments outer boundary area was tagged with building=apartments, which means that the entire area is one big building. (I went ahead and fixed that.)
Other than that, everything looks super. 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 change here. Looks great! Thanks for providing a source/explanation. If you feel confident enough, you could also add the new business that replaced it. (But that's not required, of course.)
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contribution to the map!

More info on the OSM Wiki: natural=scrub

Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me! I understand natural=scrub to generally mean "Shrubby plants, maybe some wild grasses, and trees whose growth is stunted." Something like this: http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/243/1/b/scrubland_stock_2_by_humblebeez-d2xp3an.jpg

However, the definitions aren't really strict and it can depend on the context, unfortunately. If not scrub here, perhaps natural=wood would be the next best thing.

Let me know what you think. Thanks for your contributions!