I don't know about that one, but the Rusty Moose is a pretty clear "amenity=restaurant, cuisine=american".

I think you're misinterpreting the "ways with long segments" issue: the problem isn't the length of the way, but the lack of nodes. When someone queries OSM for the geometry in an area, the OSM server finds all the nodes in the area, then looks for ways and relations associated with them. If a way passes through an area but doesn't have any nodes, it won't show up.

The correct fix isn't to split the way, but to add more nodes. Somewhere between two and ten nodes per mile for a straight line is reasonable: more in dense areas like a city where someone's likely to download just a small part, less in sparse rural areas.

It looks like you forgot to include the "building=" tags on this batch.

I'm trying to figure out the reasoning for some of the "fixes" you made here. For example, you sliced up the Sanpoil River into about a dozen pieces without apparent reason; you did a similar split to part of the Ferry County/Okanogan County boundary. In other places, you've made apparently-trivial changes to way geometry, and I can't figure out *what* you changed about a power line near the Spokane airport.

Actually, our most important job is to make an accurate map. Sure, deleting keyword-stuffing is satisfying, but translating it into OSM tags makes a better map.

Unless something's changed since the last time I drove it, Wellesley curves around to become Valley Springs, with Havana and an unsigned road branching off to the left. It's not a squared-off intersection like you've drawn it.

Could you do your stuff in smaller pieces? Scattering it out like this makes it show up in the history view for everyone in the United States and most of Canada.

A more descriptive comment than "Stuff" would be nice, too. Something along the lines of "Traced building outlines" or "Added parking lots", perhaps.

"Road closed" isn't a reason to delete a road, it's a reason to mark it as "No access". "Road gone" is a reason to delete, but all the aerial imagery I've looked at still shows this.

Thanks for the source. Looks like they might actually be going with that route -- the estimated costs are about right for a large bridge and some significant cuts.

Are you sure this is a service road? In the available imagery, it looks like a fairly standard two-lane road to me.

Are you sure some of these are tracks? Smyth Road in particular looked like an ordinary rural gravel road when I drove past it two years ago.

This reservoir doesn't show up on any aerial imagery or any of the street-level images of the area, and it's not on the Spokane Water Department's list of facilities. Thus, I'm forced to conclude that it doesn't exist, and is merely an attempt at attracting Pokemon.

Welcome to OSM!

When you're adding something to the map, it's important to tag what sort of thing it is. Giving a basketball court a name describing it as such only helps people searching by name, while adding the "Basketball Court" tag lets people search by type, or do things like make a map highlighting every basketball court in the area.

You can also change the background imagery shown in the editor: it's the "Background Settings" button on the right (the one that looks sort of like three stacked sheets of paper). In the Spokane area, the "Esri World Imagery" option is the sharpest imagery available, and it's good enough that you can tell there was a 3v3 basketball game going on when the aerial photo of the park was taken.

Some have, some haven't.

I suspect there's a fair bit of wishful thinking in this planned alignment. You'd need to build at least one large bridge and dig some significant cuts to actually fit it into the landscape.

Simply giving a point a name isn't much use. It's much better to say what sort of thing it is. In the case of a trailhead, the most common choice is to tag it as a parking lot, but there's also a "trailhead" tag that occasionally gets used.

A quick tip: if you're editing in the Spokane County area, "Esri World Imagery" is far sharper than the default Bing background imagery. You can change which imagery you're using by clicking on the "Background settings" button in the editor (the one that looks sort of like three stacked sheets of paper).

I'm used to the Idaho Panhandle Forests, where forest service roads often have both a name ("Trestle Creek Road") and a number ("275"), and signs might use either (or occasionally both). If you don't think it's signed "Big Foot" anywhere, then removing the name is fine with me.

I try to keep an eye on everything in the Eastern Washington/Northern Idaho/Western Montana area. This is right at the southeastern corner of what I watch. I'm busy catching up on the backlog from being on vacation for a week.

The Census Bureau seems to think it's called "Big Foot". No idea if they're right or not -- they've got a habit of being wrong in rural areas.

The building looks decidedly apartment-like, the website is a GoDaddy landing page, and a Google search for "Baker Law Office" shows a number of addresses that are decidedly closer to downtown. Are you sure you mapped this correctly?