Hey! Nice to see someone editing around my old school. Do they still have the plaques up for the tree dedications? You could totally add that information.

What is the purpose of moving these buildings? The features were added with known imagery offsets for this area; moving them slightly to the NW actually makes them less accurate.

Oh, I do like that sub-area style. I think combined with an appropriate `indoor` tag could lead that to being very high-quality data, while still being accurate with respect to the building itself.
Looking on Taginfo, there does appear to be a modest overlap in indoor=* and shop=* (often with level=*, too). Well, I'm sold. I may try to replicate the style you've achieved at the Outlets with added indoor tagging around me. Thanks for the inspiration!

For multi-building situations, it's kind of a toss-up for me. A building MP still implies the business == the buildings. I know that in the case of hotels, it's acceptable to tag the hotel's "campus" with the tourism tag. And really, there's no rule that a `shop` or `amenity` feature must correspond strictly to a building. I'd be curious to see how users would react to the idea of a business way that covers the business' area rather than simply the building. But that's not a discussion for a changeset comment. I'll ping you on Discord and see what other users think about that.

Based on the raw numbers in Taginfo, only about 20% of all shop and restaurant features are combined with a `building` tag. In other areas I've edited, I tended to see more businesses as POIs than closed ways, which led me to think (perhaps mistakenly) that there was a "more common" approach. When you filter those features for ways only, though, nearly all (>90%) are combined with a building tag. And that's just globally, so it doesn't catch any regional differences.

Personally, I will probably still default to POIs unless I have the local knowledge to know that a building has no other use, or for strip malls, know where the internal dividing walls are roughly located. But I'll stick to either local knowledge edits or adding what's missing from here on out, so that I'm not just keeping other users like yourself busy.

Thanks for the feedback!

Sorry, I just remembered an additional point: some single businesses encompass multiple buildings, too. Tagging only one of the buildings w/ the business information can't capture that either. Not that a POI would, but it at least wouldn't imply a single building as being "the" business.

D'oh! Bonehead mistake on my part! Sorry about that, that was just sloppy.

Hi there!
In my mind, it's simpler and more consistent to go with business as POI, building as separate way. A building is often only *part* of a business, not unlike a school building is only one part of a school.
Consider basically any food or drink establishment with outdoor seating; the diners outside are not considered to be somewhere other than the business they're patronizing.
With large strip malls, there's often just one actual building, so splitting that up at the interior walls into a series of connected buildings is inaccurate. It's *one* building, it should be *one* feature. POI mapping of businesses is the only way to accurately map multiple businesses/offices/amenities in a single building.
Additionally, businesses can move! If I decide to terminate my lease and move my shop across the street, it's literally the same entity, but in a different location. POI mapping allows for this kind of "entity continuity" in a way that building-based mapping does not.
I'll concede that this can lead to duplication of address information, particularly in cases of 1:1 business and building situations. Perhaps those 1:1 cases can be left as is, but I personally prefer to keep all businesses as POIs for consistency.
As a small-time end-user of OSM data, it's *much* easier to ingest and make use of data that is consistently in a single format (dedicated points vs areas w/ non-business tags). Yes, I can just take the building centroids and get roughly the same thing.
From an editing perspective, I can easily load and edit larger numbers of businesses as POIs than I can as ways, so it makes it easier for me to maintain the business data in my area, something I want to make a greater habit of doing.

I suppose I've gone on long enough. You're free to disagree with any and all of the above. I was just "cruising" up Rt 34 and kept going out of Kendall County and did some mapping there. But I will always defer to what local mappers prefer in their area, so I will not be offended if you choose to revert this changeset (or any of the similar ones in the area).

Nice additions! Just watch out, it looks like one of the sidewalks snapped to a boundary feature. Unless you're actually meaning to edit boundaries, it's usually best to go into iD's settings and uncheck the box so that those features don't display. Other than that, it all looks great!

Hey there! I always appreciate folks trying to work on admin boundaries, especially ones that are straight-up missing from OSM. I was out of town, else I'd have noticed this sooner, but this isn't quite how admin boundaries work.
Forgive my presumption, but I'd guess you probably just didn't know quite what you were doing with JOSM's relation editor?
I'll probably start a thread on the Discord server to walk through this when I get a chance, but some notes for the time being:
1. Admin boundaries should be relations, not ways.
2. The relations are made up of member ways that are often shared with *other* relations. Such as the eastern boundary of Township A is the same way as the western boundary of Township B.
You've already imported the townships as ways, so there's no need to remove that data; we can use it to build the proper relations. I'll ping you on Discord when I do that.

Cleaning up boundary relations is a task too often overlooked. Thanks for doing this kind work!

1. I digitized them from hi-res imagery (~3in. pixels) so I think they were pretty well mapped, but I am doing this from a ways west of here, not in person. If you feel you are improving them, then by all means do so, but just edit the existing feature.
2. I thought I removed the building tag from the fences, my mistake.

Hi there! Why did you delete and re-add various sport pitches? And why delete the fences? They're definitely visible in imagery.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110128738

I was nearly about to start in on this thing, but updated my JOSM layer just after your edits posted. Thanks for taking care of this thing!

I closed up what I could. Some other gaps got narrower, but are still there.
I really wish developers wouldn't do it this way, but I suppose it makes sense with the heavy equipment going in and out of a build site. Still, there are areas over in Kendall County where there have been 1 or 2 lot gaps in the sidewalk for over 10 years.

Hey there!

I don't know if it's publicly available. We use a proprietary imagery provider in Kendall County (I work there), and while I have permission to map things using the imagery, I do not believe I can share the imagery itself.

If you'd like, I can make a quick sweep of this area and close up any other sidewalk gaps I see. The imagery was just flown last month, so it's quite current.

PS - I'm already working on fixing those boundaries, so no worries.

Hey there! Thanks for making so many great additions to the map!
One bit of advice: I see you're using the iD editor. iD is a fantastic tool, but it can often lead to objects being snapped to one another that shouldn't be. Some of your landuse additions got snapped to Plainfield's administrative boundary. In general, admin boundaries shouldn't snap to anything but other admin boundaries.
In iD, you can open the Map Data menu and turn boundaries off, and that will prevent you from accidentally editing boundaries.
Happy Mapping!

JOSM seems to have sent my changeset even though I was still typing...
What the changeset comment should also say:
removing landuse=forest, tagging FP areas as nature_reserves. removing duplicate/overlapping features and dissolving arbitrary internal boundaries. adding some natural features, making other fixes to adjacent features. naming parking / picnic areas rather than nature reserves following public domain FP data from Cook County.
source: Cook County Open Data, local knowledge, aerial imagery.
more to come!

forgot to add: also removed "Kentland" hamlet point. It's a GNIS feature that has *long* since stopped referring to any legitimate populated place.

If you *really* wanted to do it that way, you can use josm-tested.jar w/ a command-line argument (use a batch file or shell script) to load a custom preferences XML.

That way, you can have one shortcut for Account A, and one for Account B, even open both simultaneously.

Hey there! I was browsing around the state, cleaning up some admin boundaries, and these caught my eye. I'm not a local, but is Frat Park really a place? And if it is, it it really an *administrative* unit? Or just a neighborhood?