OSM is not a tract map. Please revert this edit. Instead, consider using JOSM geometry tools to "shrink-wrap" the plots and generate landuse polygons that are suitable for OSM.

Copyright infringement. What you are describing is called copyright infringement.
In any case, the business should probably not be added to OSM. It is run out of someone's house. If I cannot walk in to this private residence during some sort of opening hours unannounced then it is not suitable for OSM.

Landuse is pretty subjective. You might consider asking the original mapper, h551w, for their input through a comment here: changeset/116846552. I presume you are referring to way/1026567209.

It seems like the museum/event center area might be part of the park itself (like the Idaho State Museum in Julia Davis Park), in which case you could combine the two.

way/1134831648 does not exist. It is a pedestrian path between apartment buildings. I removed it in changeset/147997612 and replaced it with a foot path.

Hey, don't stress about it. That's why it's a collaborative map. Middleton didn't have much in the way of addresses (or much of anything at all, really) before you came along.

If you're interested in adding a lot of address data, you could consider asking Canyon County to relicense and offer for free their address dataset and either importing it or using it as another data source. Having that data has been immensely helpful for mapping Ada County. I've noticed a lot of misnamed and non-existent roads because I was able to compare them with the address data.

The housenumbers are shared with the house up the street? That seems strange.

I would think 321 is a housenumber, not a block. I have not heard of any block-based addresses in the United States.

Are you sure the unit and housenumber are the same? Typically the park has a single address and then they have space/trailer numbers. The assessor says the address is 321 E Idaho St.

You shouldn't connect landuse to roads. It is inaccurate and makes it harder to edit.

Check housenumber on way/761870148, parity looks incorrect

Check housenumber on way/761870630, parity looks incorrect

This took two hours. Say what you want about cookie-cutter suburbs but it's much easier to map the sidewalks

The powerline edit was probably accidental, since there is no tower there

The addresses you deleted were the new addresses. You also should have repurposed the construction as residential landuse instead of deleting it. It had address and name information on it. The building polygon is not very well aligned either. I have reverted this changeset.

Some of your tags were improperly formatted (like opening hours and phone number). I fixed these. Your change also moved a lot of nodes around, putting businesses and addresses in the wrong locations, moving sidewalks, and even deleting address data. Please be more careful.

You're not the only one. It's hard to install new exhibits at the zoo while the TIGER enclosure is a mess.

You have added foot=use_sidepath to ways like way/659572145. But there are no sidewalks!

I think that access tags like foot=* are meant for signed restrictions anyway. Is it really not allowed to walk on these streets?

Because this user is a known vandal

"Nouth Weast"? node/5849562110

Oops, copy and paste fail. Meant to link to way/6706581