access=private is more appropriate for such a situation. access=no is more for things like military installations and paths that are closed due to erosion. Garden variety prohibitions on trespassing should use private access instead.

Please stop gluing landuse to roads. It is incorrect and makes it harder to maintain.

Elevation 835 is correct

Please check spelling of name and addr:state

I added some landcover just for you, "Land Owner". You think your property rights extend to our servers and vandalize them accordingly. Very immature and disrespectful of you.

This is not a fight you will win. We have seen all your tactics a hundred times before. It will amount to nothing more than a massive waste of your time, and a small waste of time for a great number of people.

Mapping your property in more detail is petulant, perhaps, but it also means you'll be wasting more of your time next time you try to destroy our data. Just more opportunities to give you pause.

Good luck getting a response from the auto-generated Map builder account. Don't know why Bing let this through.

Maybe next time, you should add buildings according to reality. This building is extremely poorly digitized and should be removed. way/1122960425

I agree that hotels should be mapped as sites if they consist of more than one building.

In the meantime, one technique is to remove all the extra tags, then perform the dupe check. You can then purge the existing objects before uploading.

The numbers would be more appropriate in ref=* than name=*

Island Park is already on the map elsewhere. Mack's Inn is an old locality. Sorry for not being more clear. Zoom out and look to the south.

Wrong place

Please don't connect landuse to roads! It is incorrect topology and makes it harder to maintain.

Just noticed I've commented here before. You surveyed 712 houses and uploaded in a single changeset. Now that's impressive.

"Gold Steet" on houses vs. Gold Drive on road, which is correct? way/761870064

OSM is not a tract map. Please revert this edit. Instead, consider using JOSM geometry tools to "shrink-wrap" the plots and generate landuse polygons that are suitable for OSM.

Copyright infringement. What you are describing is called copyright infringement.
In any case, the business should probably not be added to OSM. It is run out of someone's house. If I cannot walk in to this private residence during some sort of opening hours unannounced then it is not suitable for OSM.

Landuse is pretty subjective. You might consider asking the original mapper, h551w, for their input through a comment here: changeset/116846552. I presume you are referring to way/1026567209.

It seems like the museum/event center area might be part of the park itself (like the Idaho State Museum in Julia Davis Park), in which case you could combine the two.

way/1134831648 does not exist. It is a pedestrian path between apartment buildings. I removed it in changeset/147997612 and replaced it with a foot path.

Hey, don't stress about it. That's why it's a collaborative map. Middleton didn't have much in the way of addresses (or much of anything at all, really) before you came along.

If you're interested in adding a lot of address data, you could consider asking Canyon County to relicense and offer for free their address dataset and either importing it or using it as another data source. Having that data has been immensely helpful for mapping Ada County. I've noticed a lot of misnamed and non-existent roads because I was able to compare them with the address data.