Please verify: is the suffix really Street? It seems to be listed by the county as Drive.

Thanks for adding these. In the area it is preferred to tag as building=detached to indicate they are single-family homes. Also note that there are address nodes present, and when the data is added to the houses the node should be deleted. By selecting both the address and the building, you can move the data and delete the point just by pressing C.

This turn restriction relation/15443553 says that people must make a U-turn here, meaning they can't go straight. This is obviously wrong.

Check this road segment, it is duplicating way/1138141578

If a road has two names, it is usually better to put the primary one as the name and the other name as alt_name.

One more: start_date is for the feature, not the company.

The number of the tee should be ref=*, not name=*.

W Germantown Pike -> West Germantown Pike?

According to wiki it's okay and appropriate to list the owner's name operator=*

Again, you've accidentally added the name to a node. It looks like you were able to figure out how to put it on the way, though. Let me know if you have any other questions!

The answer is that only a few parcels are still occupied, and the roads to them are still maintained. This is often the case with these abandoned townsites.

Here's how I mapped a similar situation: node/150938505 (see surrounding area)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap! You have added the name to a road junction, rather than an actual road. Which road were you meaning to change the name of?

Also, note that road names are expanded on OpenStreetMap. This means all directions and suffixes should be spelled out (E -> East, Rd -> Road, etc.)

Here's another example (coincidentally also in Montana): https://www.google.com/maps/@48.5590927,-112.1249976,18z

https://toolecountymt.gov/pdf/commissioners_minutes/2020/10_29_2020_Commissioner_Minutes.pdf

In short, a road can disappear in a physical sense without ever being reflected in legal documents.

Here's an example: take Trout Creek, Montana (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8479174,-115.6253139,18z). If you look at Google Maps, you see these parcels laid out in a grid, but no matching streets. There was a public hearing to vacate this plat just three days ago: https://co.sanders.mt.us/notice-of-public-hearing-townsite-of-trout-creek/

It is immediately clear that no streets have existed here for decades and the town itself is completely abandoned, but they are necessarily still listed in the county's street database because they still legally exist. To stay in accordance with OSM's rules about mapping what's on the ground, these roads would not be mapped even before the plat vacation. The case here isn't much different.

I don't think most of these roads should be on the map. They may have existed in the past, but are now abandoned. The parcels and streets were never vacated, so they might still exist in a legal sense, but most of these roads can't be driven on, have no addresses assigned off them, and have no signs on the ground. As far as I can tell, only Main Street, a single block of 7th Street, and Old Parker Road are still signed. This is common in many abandoned/disincorporated towns. You likely know the area better than I, so I may have misjudged, but I have mapped similar situations before from my armchair and through on-the-ground survey. Let me know your thoughts.

I would generally say that while parcel maps are perhaps the best source for verifying the shape and name of a road, when dated they don't always reflect reality. These townsites aren't vacated because it requires action on the part of the landowners and there is no point in spending time and money filing paperwork to vacate parcels that aren't worth money to begin with. As for the streets, these require the consent of landowners to be vacated, and again there is no point because you're just spending time to abolish a pointless legal reality. Without a vacation, the parcels and streets will remain in the assessor's listings.

Not the only potentially problematic way. way/1084514292 and way/1084514162, for example. It would probably be good to take a look at the entire relation.

way/1084514202 being part of the forest seems suspect. It overlaps private residences and doesn't follow parcel boundaries.

Even more confusing, it was originally platted as part of Blaser No. 7, which is already weird because all of those plats are in completely different parts of the city.

The former building was also weird. Windows added in the rear sometime in the 2010s, a clipped corner, and just generally not looking like a house (and especially a mobile home). Indecipherable.

5,761 changesets. I'm so sorry.

Coastlines are rerendered very infrequently due to their unique implementation that is also computationally intensive. If you did things right it can still take weeks to show up.

SEO editors never come back and never look at changeset comments. I haven't seen it happen once. They only ever come back to update the listing.