To be clear, I'm open to possibility that I don't have it quite right either. But if I was working on this the fact that I was having to go change so many complete waterways that a conversation might be warranted and to verify the wiki still represents the consensus.

I believe you are misunderstanding that guidance. It is not saying that a waterbody larger than 3 meters should be a river. It is saying anything less should be tagged a stream. It isn't an upper limit on stream but a lower limit on river. Most waterways or roughly half in OSM tagged river are at least 10 meters wide.

Was this series of changes discussed anywhere? What width rule are you referring to? I wonder if you're misinterpreting that guidance to classify a waterway less than 3 meters in width as a stream as always classify waterways with widths larger as a river.

It's okay to connect the streams, just never cross them </end ghostbuster joke> lol

Please consider being specific and explicit in your changeset descriptions.

Providing detailed descriptions ensures that other mappers can understand the rationale behind alterations and contribute effectively. As an example, the changeset you reverted had a notably more informative description: "Added road name 'North Highway 183'. Source - North American Roads and user feedback. #mapbox_contribute."

Please consider offering similarly informative descriptions in your changesets, as it greatly aids in maintaining clarity and collaboration among mappers.

This changeset appears to update the name of the administrative boundary for the city of Jarrell from "Jarrell" to "Jarrell City Limits". Typically the name key is the official or primary name of a feature. For administrative boundaries such as this, the city name is almost always the correct value. Could you kindly revert it back or share your thinking on why "Jarrell City Limits" is the more appropriate value in this case? Thanks!

This changeset has prompted discussion in #place-classification on the OSM US slack. If you'd like to participate, you can find the thread at https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C066VNZEGQ7/p1702742128088529

Yes, Pioneer Crossing Neighborhood Park is an actual park though it doesn't much look like one does it from available imagery? Now, CAD often provides great clues but CAD is interested in ownership and taxation. Be careful not to rely on non authoritative sources. Travis CAD shows both the plot and the area you reduced from as owned by City of Austin and exempt. A city is of course permitted to set the boundaries of a park and have it extend across multiple plots they own in whole or in part. City of Austin maintains boundaries for parks in their BOUNDARIES_city_of_austin_parks GIS asset. Here is link with a Harris Branch and Pioneer Crossing Neighborhood Park filter selection: https://arcg.is/0XWKan

source: https://www.averyranchaustin.com/community-map/