You're missing my point with #1. Yes, there's a label on the map that says "Fishtrap". There are a number of buildings near it. But there's no connection between the two: you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who would say "I live in Fishtrap" (or even "I lived in Fishtrap" -- the most recent obituary in the Spokane newspaper to mention Fishtrap dates from 1995).

This isn't the case with Tyler. Yes, again there's a label on the map and buildings nearby. But this time, there are also a few hundred people who would say "I live in Tyler".

There are two major problems with using "isolated_dwelling".

The first and more significant is that many of these names are no longer used to describe where people live. Someone might say they live by the Fishtrap exit off I-90, but they wouldn't say they live in Fishtrap. Many of these names are more than a century old, and represent farming communities that vanished in the 1920s and 1930s.

The second stems from the first: Nominatim and other geocoders consider isolated_dwelling to be part of the addressing hierarchy. For example, Nominatim will tell you that the farm near the intersection of Hein Road and Safety Pin Ranch Road has a "Gravelles" address, even though the Gravelles Post Office closed in 1896 and it actually has a "Davenport" address.

(A third problem is that armchair mappers, particularly from India, will spot an American farm or ranch nearby and see it as a village, when the cluster of buildings actually represents just a single family. They'll then move the node to the farm, to "correct" the "misplaced" village node.)

The description tag may not be for advertising, but it is for describing the location. I see nothing promotional about the description of Montana Peterbilt.

The vast majority of "hamlets" out in the middle of nowhere are former (or sometimes current) railway stops, and should be re-tagged as "locality", not "isolated dwelling".

Could you take a second look at this? I'm pretty sure the drydocks and loading docks you've added aren't correctly tagged.

The map display on openstreetmap.org is hardly the only place where OSM data shows up. In many of the other places, adding a business as both a point and an area is counterproductive:

* In OsmAnd, each business will show up twice, and since they're so close together, they'll crowd each other out and be shown as a small dot rather than an icon.

* In StreetComplete, the user will be asked twice for missing information about things like opening hours or wheelchair access, increasing the odds of a mistake.

* Pokemon Go uses OSM data: doubling up on a "no Pokemon allowed" object will increase the area of effect.

* Amazon uses OSM data to route delivery drivers: if a business is present twice, it's possible that a multi-part shipment will be given to two drivers rather than combined into a single delivery.

And so on.

I've cleaned them up, but Perkins, Burger King, Snappys, Apex Automotive, Flathead Transmission, and City Brew Coffee were all mapped twice: once with the information on the building outline, and once with it on a point inside the building.

Please don't use the "name" field to describe things, particularly in cases like this where the description is incorrect.

Is there a reason why you're creating duplicates of existing businesses rather than just adding the new information to the existing version?

I don't know. You'll have to ask Mesowhite, who was the one who originally made it a city: changeset/65947260

Is there a reason why you deleted the "place=city" tag from Beaumont, Alberta?

Not all imagery is created equal. In the case of the Numerica bank, the only imagery new enough to show it when I added it was "DigitalGlobe Standard", the only redeeming feature of which is that it's generally quite recent -- it's also very blurry and poorly-aligned.

Nowadays, we've got high-quality Bing imagery (I think it's about nine months old) and Esri imagery (three months older than Bing), and there's another aerial survey going on right now -- with luck, we'll have access to it in a few months.

The relationship between boundaries and rivers is an incredibly complicated area of law. In general, if the river shifts course gradually, the boundary follows the river; if it shifts course abruptly (eg. a flood causes it to settle into a new course), the boundary doesn't.

The geography of the Hells Canyon area pretty much ensures that any river movement will be gradual.

I've partially reverted this changeset. Many of the razed: or demolished: features you deleted are still visible in recent imagery, and having them mapped as demolished discourages armchair mappers from re-adding them.

I also restored one building you deleted that is visible in all available imagery.

I've fixed the road here.

The "Residential Road" tag is meant for roads running through residential areas, and for historic reasons, you'll also see it used as a generic "no particular road type" tag. Most of what you've added here should be using the "Driveway" tag.

You accidentally turned the entire Kalispel Golf Course into a sand trap here. I've changed it back, but please be more careful in the future.

Thanks for the addition.

When adding "floating" sidewalks like this, it's useful to connect the ends to the nearest street or driveway, even if there's no paved connection. This lets routing software know it's possible to move between the two.

When I drove along Fairview Avenue on the evening of May 11, 2017, it did not appear to be lit. Has that changed?

The problem is that this changeset added a number of bridges in places where there aren't bridges. Of the twelve I've checked so far, eleven haven't actually been bridges.