I wasn't aware that highway=turning_loop was a tag that was in active use. In that case, I have no problem with the use of that tag if a loop hasn't been mapped yet. However, you still deleted more detailed mapping with a oneway way and replaced it with a more basic single node. The way you've mapped it provides far less information than previously. Deleting more detailing mapping goes against the general mapping policies of OSM and is simply a confusing decision. Not only does the wiki article not say that you should replace detailed mapping with a node, it even mentions the scenario under which these loops were previously mapped:
"If you trace the entire loop, special tags are not needed (use oneway=yes if such restriction is posted)."
Please revert these edits to restore the detailed mapping that I had performed, and you should also revert any similar changes you may have made in other places.

The roads you've marked as under construction are not being built yet. Early site preparation is still ongoing and currently the work is focusing on the Galloping Goose cycle trail.

Why have you deleted the detailed mapping of these turning loops and replaced them with more basic (and incorrect) turning circles? Not only is the mapping now less detailed than previously and now incorrect, you failed to reconnect a trail to the road it joins. Also, Capella Drive is not under construction. Construction on that project halted many years ago.

What is your source for these changes? I drove over here today and can find no evidence that there's any work occurring on the roads you've marked as under construction. Also, while Turnstyle Crescent has indeed been extended (you extended it without the name), it isn't open as far as you've mapped. The new section of Kettle Lake Drive also hasn't been opened yet and is still under construction. I'm also confused why you've changed the locations of the new roads, because I also can't find any evidence that they'll be built in the locations you've mapped. If you were simply guessing when you made these changes, it would be far better to leave such mapping to local mappers instead of trying to guess what's happening from a long distance. With all the errors and damage that Telenav editors have been making over the last year, I'd strongly suggest that you scale back any editing until you can learn more about how to properly map before you start making widespread edits.

I saw a similar article on the CRD site, so I went up on Saturday to check it out. The section from Stebbings Road to the CRD boundary near Finlayson View Place was completed in May, and the CRD's portion opened on Friday. However, when I was there on Saturday, the section between Sooke Lake Road and Stebbings Road wasn't quite complete and there were still signs saying it was closed. It was very close to being finished, though, so I expect it will be open by this weekend, if it isn't already.

These aren't the names of these roads. These are private strata driveways with no names and definitely aren't part of Interurban Road.

Please don't keep adding this turning lane. It was removed when the new building was constructed on the corner

BTW, in the process this caused a footway to improperly cross Cobble Hill Road in an odd fashion, which should have been fixed when validating before uploading the changeset. This is what alerted me to the poor alignment

This changeset appears to have used unadjusted Bing imagery, so features were shifted about 15 metres away from their proper position. Default Bing alignment is pretty bad in this area (as can be seen when comparing with Geobase Roads), so it needs to be properly aligned before using. I'm going to revert this changeset to move objects back to where they should be

This changeset destroyed on-site mapping and replaced it with old road configurations based on outdated imagery, so I've reverted it

This changeset destroyed my mapping of the realigned road at the intersection of Central Saanich and Central Saanich Cross, and replaced it with the previous configuration based on old imagery. Please try to be more careful that you don't rely solely on imagery which is often out of date. By comparing my edits from March 2016 with the date of the imagery (pre-2015), it should have been a good indicator that the data was newer than the imagery and likely more correct. I'm going to revert this changeset to restore the correct configuration.

Neither of these turn restrictions exist in reality, like many other similar ones that were added recently. What is the source being used that indicates these right turns are illegal? Routers should prefer the link roads, but it's completely legal to turn right in these situations unless otherwise posted (which it isn't here).

Hi Frohl,
This changeset shifted a number of objects significantly away from their actual position, so I'm going to undo (revert) it. Please keep in mind that background imagery needs to be properly aligned before using it, and the Bing imagery is very mis-aligned by default on southern Vancouver Island. The Mapbox satellite imagery is much better and can be used to help align the Bing imagery. Feel free to send me a message if you have any questions.

Hi NitsuaBaron,
This changeset shifted many of the features in this area pretty significantly to the south and away from their actual position. I expect this was unintentional and the result of an inadvertent move, so I'm going to undo (revert) this changeset to restore objects to their previous position.
Andrew

Hi Kelly,
It would be appreciated if you could put the bus stop number in the "ref" tag rather than "name". "ref" is the most appropriate tag for that number. Thanks! Andrew

This changeset deleted some carefully surveyed new roads and replaced them with some service roads based on old and out-of-date imagery and left some roads disconnected. Why was this done? The "source" seems to imply that this somehow improved the map, but all I can see is destructive armchair editing. Please take more care in the future before wiping out the work of other contributors. This changeset doesn't add any correct data and destroyed some, so I'm going to revert it in its entirety.

Hi VP,
Whether it renders or not is secondary to having the data be as accurate as possible. As tagged before, it was indicated as an active nature reserve, which contradicts the proposed status that implies that it doesn't yet exist. Until the park is officially dedicated, there's really nothing that needs to be shown on any map yet. If you have a license-compatible source that shows the area is a park reserve with a different name, I'd support changing it back to leisure=nature_reserve with that name.
Andrew

Hi, sorry for not responding sooner. This edit was one of several by this user that I reverted. None of them had any seemingly-legitimate changes in them. All they consisted of was some random moving of a bunch of nodes that meant roads and footways resembled a plate of spaghetti, and a few rectangular buildings were made circular. I used Achavi to look for any possibly-useful changes, but couldn't see any. To me, it was clearly someone just messing around.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll review all the objects that were created during that import to look for any others that may have been mistagged.

In the future, if you identify something wrong with a changeset, it is much more helpful to describe what you feel is wrong rather than simply describe it as garbage and insult the contributor.

You've linked to one object from this changeset, but you haven't given any indication of why it's "garbage". Can you please provide more detail?