Thanks for catching that. I have corrected it along with adding other tags.

If someone sees this, please let me know what I can do to correct this. The parking isle goes on the surface level, which is at the same level of the street. It is not covered. I am not sure how to correctly tag these.

Thanks for the info and link. I didn't realize there were reviewers working in that way. I just did a somewhat large one. But will try to keep them smaller from now on.

Hello. Thanks for all of your edits. I was cleaning up some mapping errors where tree nodes were also mapped with an area. Tree nodes are for individual trees while the area tagged with natural=wood is for forest.

I just cleaned up a bunch of data and noticed some of your recent edits were in the changeset. I thought I'd let you know to save you some work in your editing. I see you have a lot of notes in this area. Keep it up! :-)

Sounds good. Looks like they are tagged properly now.

Thanks for editing and thanks for asking. Based on your reply, I think you realize why they were not needed. But here is the explanation. Ways that use building:part are used for tagging parts of a building differently than the rest of the whole. The building parts that were deleted only had a tag of building:part=*. No other tags were provided. So a single way for the entire building is most fitting.

As a side note, I came across these ways because they had invalid values for building:part. They were tagged with a value of "1" when it should have been a descriptive value or "yes".

I'm guessing you're already aware of all of this. But you asked :-)

I have removed the nodes.

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that this information is public. Private information should not be published on OpenStreetMap. I suggest creating your own waypoints in an app like OsmAnd.

I'm not sure if this is the best or correct way to map this. While they do share a small part of a wall, the buildings are separate but owned and operated by the same business, under the same business name.

That was an accident. I was probably mistyping a keyboard shortcut. Thanks for fixing it.

Most of the time they are not very accurate because they are auto generated and imported. If a turning circle is small enough that it will not have anything meaningful tagged (e.g. a statue in the middle) then it is better to tag it as a single node.

Thanks for your edit. I have removed the name of the building. For more info on when/how to name features on the map take a look at osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Accidentally marked as requesting review. This one has no need for review :-)

Thanks for catching that. I just updated again, removing the name.

Don't forget to resolve the note. note/4520979

Probably closed now/seasonal. Most golf courses close in Oct around there. Yes, 9-hole as well. I'll take a look at tags to update for adding some of that.

Thanks for the note. I did some searching and ended up taking the suggestion on the note. My search didn't turn up shop=new_age but I have just updated the map with it.

Awesome! Thank you. I'll be looking back at your edit for reference when something like this comes up again. Much appreciated.

Thanks for the input. Its good to hear from someone with a lot of edits. I'll take that in to consideration.

It doesn't outright say one way is correct over the other but I take the "One feature, one OSM element" good practice principle (osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element) to be if there is one occupant of a building, the tags should be added to the building. If multiple business occupy a building then it gets points for each occupant.

This explanation is also what I base that on: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/22962/should-i-use-pois-or-areas-to-identify-shops

Once you start looking at buildings, this can sometimes get a little grey. I think of buildings with a business below and unnamed apartments above. It gets a little odd to map.

Thanks again for the input :-)

Thanks for catching that and letting me know. They are both updated.