Good work! :) It appears this section of the road was dismantled between 2011 and 2015.

A quick review of available imagery including street level photography suggests the road extends further then where you've truncated it. Here is a good resource for this particular location, try viewing a few different available surveys to get a sense of the road's true geometry: https://gis.pottcounty-ia.gov/Nearmap/?x=-95.842&y=41.2713

Hi there. It appears you accidentally recreated the road (aka way) overtop of itself a few times instead of modifying the existing ways. Do you need help fixing this? Be sure to check out the editor tutorial if you haven't already. Wiki is also great source of information as is I'm sure local OSM community chat group or channel. Cheers!

The description for this changeset is grossly different from what was actually added or changed which makes it difficult to know if some changes were intentional or by mistake.

Hi there. Your edit has been reverted. (1) It appears you accidentally dragged certain nodes out of place by accident. (2) The access=no tag indicates that the object is not to be used by the general public which is incompatible with a primary highway and motor_vehicle=yes is already implied by highway=primary.

In reviewing some of your other edits, it appears you may have a few misunderstandings regarding the meaning and use of several tags. I would highly recommend getting involved with a local user group or via Slack for assistance and support. An indispensable resource will also be the wiki located at osm.wiki/ which contains documentations for almost all tags used in OSM.

Right. Having done further reading, my understanding is that what's tagged as the culvert (which should be tagged waterway=pressurised + tunnel=flooded instead of culvert I suspect) is the outlet which is horizontal pipe permitting flow through the dam controlled by a drain gate near bottom of the reservoir. There is a riser with a trash rack which is what is visible there in the water. It is the service/primary spillway and connects to same pipe to regulate reservoir releases additional to the outlet.

As for the featured mapped as spillway: Reviewing FEMA Watershed Models and Floodplain Mapping, at each of the damn sites Milroy1812 has mapped a spillway that corresponds to a Special Flooding Hazard Area zone leading me to believe that they are the auxiliary/emergency spillways. From my reading, earthen damns built during the era these were often just used vegetated / earth emergency spillways like this that can best be approximated by a broadcrested weir.

Milroy1812 is the original mapper and might have more insight. It looks like he has mapped a number of spillways at local dams.

I don't think this is/was the primary spillway but perhaps the auxiliary / emergency spillway? Milroy1812 also mapped a spillway for Site 7, which appears to be an auxiliary spillway, though it isn't explicitly labeled as such. It's worth noting that their mapping of the other spillway doesn't seem to entirely match the designed flow from what I can determine via media reports from when it was constructed but I'm no expert.

For this site, I found a reference in Upper Brushy Creek WCID's "Dam Portfolio Prioritization Summary Report" that reads "the City of Cedar Park constructed the Buttercup Wastewater Interceptor and Reclaimed Water Line through the auxiliary spillway. The line was installed within the auxiliary spillway and the top of the excavation was covered with a 2 foot concrete cap." I reviewed GIS data from Cedar Park and found the engineering plans for the project. It suggests this feature as mapped is at least somewhat or in part correct as it intersects with the aforementioned lines.

Perhaps we can reach out to the city and/or Upper Brushy Creek WCID.

Also, see diagrams at https://www.ubcdams.org/193/Typical-Dam-Design for what we should be looking for typically.

Some feedback on your change:

1. I may be misunderstanding the direction tag so apologies if that is the case but I believe it is suppose to indicate the facing orientation of the feature. With traffic signs, they face against the direction of travel so if you encounter a traffic sign when traveling north then the sign is facing south. So the maxspeed sign added to Shetland Case, drivers encounter the sign as they travel northbound (confirmed via bing streetside imagery) so the orientation would be south but you have it tagged direction=N.

2. It appears you may have duplicated traffic signs by creating standalone nodes for some stop signs that were already tagged via a node on the way. The intersection of Shetland and Pony Chase being an example. I believe this is considered undesirable per the one feature one osm element guideline.

3. I noticed that the maxspeed is not tagged on the ways themselves in some cases where you added maxspeed traffic sign. Most software that use osm data for routing or turn by turn navigation would likely not take into consideration the maxspeed information from the traffic sign when mapped as a single node like done here. For this reason, it is usually desired when mapping a speed limit sign to always add a maxspeed=* tag to the way / section of road applicable.

4. I see in another edit you did tag maxspeed:forward on ways in this general area. However, a quick look through streetside imagery suggests that it should be just maxspeed as the speed limit affects both directions of travel on the road.

Hope you found this review helpful. If you have time, I'm looking for folks to review my changes. Let me know if you spot any potential issues in my changes or otherwise have any suggestions or tips.

The changes from residential ➜ tertiary do not seem to match classification criteria. I'd like to suggest reverting highway classification changes made in this changeset. Let me know what you think. Happy to discuss in more detail.