There are a number of problems with this changeset. It seems like you have an interest in editing major roads, including splitting and combining them. I highly recommend that you invest some time in learning the standalone editor JOSM instead of the in-browser editor iD. A number of the problems with this changeset would have been flagged as errors or warnings in JOSM, which you could have resolved prior to uploading.

The general idea of splitting McLoughin into a dual carriageway makes sense since there is what looks to be a traffic island separating each side of the road.

I know this has been mentioned before, but in OSM we don't generally abbreviate street names. For the name tag, don't use "SE McLoughlin Blvd", but instead use "Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard". It might be better to copy all of the tags from the existing road onto the new segment you are creating. Then you can just add the oneway=yes tag to each leg and possibly adjust other tags like lanes and sidewalk.

JOSM does a much better job than iD when it comes to presenting Relation objects to you. This segment of road is a part of a number of route relations and a turn restriction relation. I've already fixed the bus route relations as I was editing simultaneously and I needed to resolve the conflicting versions before saving.

There is a right-turn only relation that is now broken because the "to" road of it is disconnected from the "via" Node and the "from" road. However, as this is now a connection from the Fred Meyer parking lot onto what is now a one-way section of McLoughin, the turn restriction is now superfluous and can be deleted.

If U-turns are not allowed at either end of the divided portion of McLoughin, then there needs to be turn restrictions such as "no_u_turn" or "only_straight_on". If you don't know this information, then don't add the turn restrictions.

For the Safeway that closed, don't just amend the text "(CLOSED)" to the name tag. Assuming that the building is still there, just leave the building tag and all the addr tags, but delete the tags that are specific to the Safeway such as name and shop=supermarket. If there were other tags like phone, opening_hours, or website, then those would be deleted as well.

For service roads that intersect buildings (drive-throughs), connect the Way object for the road to the Closed Way object for the building at the points where they intersect. Then split the Way object for the road into 3 objects and put a tunnel=building_passage tag on it.

Overall, it would also be helpful to associate source information with the changeset. Did you actually travel to this location or are you just looking at aerial photos? If you are using iD, I believe you have to put this directly into the changeset comment as you can't edit the other changeset tags, such as source, directly.

I'm not in a huge rush to change the tagging and I'm still trying to figure out exactly how this should be tagged.

osm.wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Railway_lines

It looks like you can actually have 3 separate types of route relations (type=route) for railways: route=tracks, route=railway, route=train.

However, I'm not sure that the tracks you are looking for would be in any of the route relations. route=tracks and route=railway state that "Only the mainline should be included, with sidings and spurs being excluded." The route=train only includes Ways that the train actually travels on during it's normal service between the first and last stop.

As detailed as the OpenRailWayMap Tagging page is, it doesn't appear that they have thought of a way to put spurs and sidings into a route relation.

I'm thinking about how to update this route relation to use the new public transport schema.

osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport

There would be 2 route relations for this: 1 for each direction. The route relations would have the stops (role of "stop") and platforms (role of "platform") interleaved in the order that they occur followed by the Ways in order that represent the rails that the the route traverses (role is empty).

These 2 route relations would then be added to a relation of type route_master.

What would be missing from what's currently there are the members with role "yard", "yard access", and "siding." Is it okay with you if these get removed from the route relation for the train route?

I can't find anything on the wiki that supports the current tagging with those roles.

It's better to limit changesets to smaller geographic areas. The bounding box for this changeset spans most of the world.

Why did you move the tags for the Emery from the landuse=residential polygon to the building polygon?

Also, you across the street, you may have combined two Ways with highway=service, so now you have the tag service=driveway;parking_aisle. It should be one or the other and not both. Pick either service=driveway or service=parking_aisle. iD does not warn you when combining ways.

I think the number is actually wrong. I think roads are assumed to have at least 16 or 17 feet of clearance unless otherwise signed. I'll make a note to double check for signs sometime.

The maxheight tag on the Broadway bridge is specified as: 16'12"
Is there a reason this is not just?: 17'
JOSM was throwing a warning and then I realized that there are 12 inches in a foot.

We might as well leave it as-is. It doesn't really fit exactly with any of the highway classes. After poking around I did find some other bus-only roads in North America that are marked highway=tertiary.

No worries. I'll merge the data at some point. There's a utility plugin for JOSM which adds a "Replace Geometry" function which can be used to easily merge tags from a Node to a closed Way.

If you search for "busway" on the main OSM site, it looks like most of the results are highway=service.

It looks like you've got some duplicate data here. I've added a few building polygons with addr tags on them and then you've put a point inside them with duplicate information. Please merge the tags from the nodes to the closed ways.

I'm not sure why the Transport Map has a lot of route ref's missing. They were there a few months ago and the route data hasn't changed much since then. I sent a message to Andy Allen (the creator of the Tranport Layer) to see if he knows what's going on.

There's another public transport map which shows more detail:

http://www.openbusmap.org/?zoom=15&lat=45.51434&lon=-122.6853&layers=TBTTT

What's the rationale for marking these roads as tertiary? It seems counterintuitive to have a road that is limited to bus traffic marked as tertiary.

This import added a lot of duplicate water features. Is there any plans to merge the duplicate data?

Reverted in changeset/33962020 per discussion on changeset/33931834

Reverted in changeset/33962020 per discussion on changeset/33931834

Reverted in changeset/33962020 per discussion on changeset/33931834

Reverted in changeset/33962020 per discussion on changeset/33931834

Reverted in changeset/33962020 per discussion on changeset/33931834

Reverted in changeset/33962020 per discussion on changeset/33931834