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.

That was an accident. I was probably mistyping a keyboard shortcut. Thanks for fixing it.

Most of the time they are not very accurate because they are auto generated and imported. If a turning circle is small enough that it will not have anything meaningful tagged (e.g. a statue in the middle) then it is better to tag it as a single node.

Thanks for your edit. I have removed the name of the building. For more info on when/how to name features on the map take a look at osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Accidentally marked as requesting review. This one has no need for review :-)

Thanks for catching that. I just updated again, removing the name.

Don't forget to resolve the note. note/4520979