As a data point, I (personally) delete the tiger:reviewed=no tag after I have given what I consider “comprehensive review” to the way. I advocate that it not be changed to something like tiger:reviewed=yes or something even stranger (and not easily parsable) like tiger:reviewed=aerial. See the quote below.
To wit, I have written (and keep updated) United States/Railroads - OpenStreetMap Wiki , a section specifically on “Editing Railroads starting from TIGER data,” since TIGER imported literally hundreds of thousands of miles (>400000 km) of rail data. These have been and continue to be rather nicely cleaned up since 2007-8, though work to complete this (easily tens of thousands of miles of rail) remains yet to do. Estimates are “about 75%” of TIGER-imported rail have been Reviewed like this; some might say “not bad” for 15 years of effort. (Thanks to all who do this, “it takes a village.”)
Specifically for rail, this wiki section suggests:
If a tiger:reviewed=no tag exists and you “reviewed” the rail (e.g. comparing against aerial/satellite imagery and better aligning where necessary, assuring tags are all correct…), delete this tag — don’t change it to the superfluous tiger:reviewed=yes or something like tiger:reviewed=aerial.
I continue to delete tiger:reviewed=no tags after such comprehensive review by me (including on roads / streets, especially local to me / in my county), but it is unknown to me whether I should similarly remove the remaining TIGER tags.
I do not recommend / advocate for removing tiger:reviewed=no mechanically: this would frustrate and actually deeply confuse our ongoing (slow) TIGER Review process. Finally, I only briefly, once again, mourn the loss of the excellent ITO World visualization tool for seeing how much TIGER Review HAS been completed — a similar tool / relatively simple renderer would really help such efforts.