amenity=self_storage is not recognized by most data consumers. Better to tag the area or the office as shop=storage_rental and just tag building=warehouse on the buildings

For a more thorough explanation, the feature you have added is not called "Gas Well". It is a gas well. It would be like saying your dog is named Dog. Despite what you might think from what the editor tells you, you are never obligated to add a name (name)=* to a feature. Only when a feature actually has a name should this tag be used

On that note, alphanumeric identifiers are also not names. You can represent those by adding a reference (ref)=*.

For more information, see the OpenStreetMap Wiki: osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

You cannot copy from other maps unless you have permission or copyright.

Even if Google Maps were an acceptable source, it is of poor quality. It has many spam and fake entries in addition to inaccurate information.

https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=25982&ext=-116.26913,43.59035,-116.23652,43.66112&localChangesOnly=true

Dates back to mid-June

I'm sure we will discover many of my building footprints are very far off. I've been wanting to map for four years at this point. Haven't been to the zoo lately, though.

Not an appropriate use of the tag name=*, should be description=* instead or similar

I think this might be a single building mapped as two.

This parking lot is demolished, please revert the changeset

Picher should be tagged as a locality. It has no people. It certainly shouldn't be a town. Place tags aren't supposed to reflect legal status but rather regional importance.

Just Concord Square, unless the name actually has "Subdivision" in it. I imagine it doesn't.

If there are any disputes about usage of language-specific names, they should be raised with the person to add them in the first place. For example, it is possible that some neighborhoods in New York have a high number of Russian speakers and the transliteration is useful. Even better, the Russian name is signposted as well. It's best to ask the original mapper about their intent.

You can try NHD, but be warned that there are plenty of issues with the data. If it looks wrong, it probably is. Here's a link to the shapefile for the area. There's a plugin to view the shapefile in JOSM. https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5a58a708e4b00b291cd69f31

Thank you for working on these roads! The TIGER data here is pretty poor, to say the least, and despite living in relative proximity I've never been to the area myself, so I haven't been able to give it much love.

I think this is from before Bing buildings added with MapWithAI in JOSM were tagged as such. That would explain the weird buildings. If so, might qualify as an import, though if no one's complained I don't know if it's worth addressing.

No, this is destroying data. Should be tagged as highway=service service=driveway

This is not true. The original address was correct. There is a private court here accessed through 1035 Lombard St, on the map here as 1 Alder Ct. The other entrance is between 1026 and 1028 Waverly St, here mapped as 11 and 12 Alder Ct.

Well, I would not call them non-existent. They are for the vacant lots. If they were to be redeveloped they would be assigned to the new buildings. They are still registered with the county.

It's probably no great loss though. If you think they are problematic I think it's okay to keep them off.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Make sure to square the corners of buildings after drawing to improve accuracy.

Names shouldn't be used as descriptions. Use building=shed, not name=Shed.

Common lots should probably just be tagged as landuse=grass, and shouldn't have a name.