I merged another duplicate node to a pre existing way (relation/17869907). I have stumbled across quite a few of these now.

Thanks for the edit. There are multiple schools here. So the school area should not have a name. See amenity=school#Multiple_schools_on_one_site

I have fixed it.

I stumbled across a misplaced node (node/12896993299) from this changeset. It is sitting on top of a building.

Merged and deleted another duplicate node (node/12944744086) not sure how many more there are in your import. On large changes there is likely going to be some conflicts like this. If you haven't already, be sure to consult the community (https://community.openstreetmap.org/) before large updates like this. Sometimes they will think of some helpful ideas.

Also, all of the nodes I have come across need tags updated to operator=Tesla (instead of Tesla, Inc.).

I have reverted the edit (changeset/168331594) and set access=private until we can get some more details.

BC720, sorry for the trouble. We are glad to help with getting this mapped correctly. We just need to know a little more info about this road. For example, is it abandoned or is it on private property now? Are there signs at either end of the road? Any of that info will be helpful.

Came here to say the same thing. Should we revert the edit and update tags?

Thanks for asking. Since there were contradicting tags, I went with the newest data and also what made the most sense in context of the area.

I have never done underground parking that is part of a building (except multilevel parking buildings). Please let me know if I need to fix anything.

I just added this one way link (in a previous edit). This edit is for routing. If there is a better way to do this, please let me know.

Hello. Thanks for editing. Unfortunately there were some problems with this changeset. There are many nodes tagged with amenity=parking that are part of areas tagged with amenity=parking. When you are mapping an area, there is no need to tag a node. I will fix this for you.

Also, there are several areas you added where an existing parking lot should have just been reshaped. For example the area you added (way/1395039796) by Cascade Plaza should be deleted. The previously existing area should be reshaped as needed.

Whenever I edit anything, I find it helpful to read the wiki article first. Here is an article on parking: amenity=parking

Hello. I have reverted your edit to the name of this business. Please see the wiki on names (osm.wiki/Names). Basically, names should not be descriptive. They should only be the name of the establishment.

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.