I'm not sure what's going on here, but there's a Node in the parking aisle that somehow connects from the Fred Meyer parking lot to NE Glisan St.

Very interesting. I see some of the Yelp reviews with pictures of both shops. Having a separate Node for Starbucks internal to the CLSB seems to make sense. The Starbucks website only lists one entity. Does that mean that both Starbucks have the same address, phone number, reference number, and opening hours? If you do a mobile phone order, which one do you pick it up at?
I may have to embark on a caffeine-fueled expedition to get to the bottom of this.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't poke around extensively by the rec center. I did see a sign for http://www.oak-hills.net/ posted prominently. I've left the access=private tags on these trails and closed note/446787

I walked around here and there aren't any signs indicating that these trails are private. They appear to be part of a public park. How do you know they are private?

Why did you add a node for Starbucks here?
node/3742183360
This seems like a duplicate of
way/330994261

Thanks for fixing this

26 of these name tags with "Portland" in other languages are just "Portland". Seems redundant?

I'm thinking we don't want to trace the outline of a boat as a building in OSM. Especially not a boat that still travels along the river and is not permanently at this location. I'd say put it in OSM if it was permanently parked here, but that's not the case.

http://www.oregonmaritimemuseum.org/

Yes, thank you for preserving the tags for each of the stores.

By converting Areas into Nodes you lose information about the size of each store. The way I modeled it, you could see that the Wells Fargo bank takes up more space than the other stores in the building. In this particular example, the difference in sizes of the stores is not that pronounced, but in other strip malls you often have "big box" stores that are considerably bigger than say a hair salon adjacent to them.

You get into philosophical territory pretty quickly when trying to figure out exactly where one building starts and another starts, especially in urban areas where everything is build right next, or on top of, each other.

By making a separate Area for each store, you can also see more clearly if there are any vacant stores. Suppose that 2 of the 4 stores were vacant and then we just have 2 Nodes inside the building Area. In that case, it's not obvious that there are 2 empty stores.

That being said, OSM does not deal well with objects directly on top of other objects. In some shopping malls, you can literally have stores on top of stores. I that case, splitting up the building into an Area for each store would result in having Areas on top of each other and would make it a pain to edit and most renderers wouldn't know how to display that.

In any case, we should continue this discussion, either here or on some other medium so that we don't end up undoing each other's work.

I had previously split the building at 1972 West Burnside Street into 4 separate buildings, one for each store. You combined the buildings into one object and then placed data for the stores as Nodes inside the building. It seems like the way you have it captures less information than I had.

I went through and cleaned a bunch of the JOSM warnings and made various improvements to the data based on what I remember from this area.

Andy Allen confirmed that there was a bug in the rendering of the transport layer. It looks to have been recently fixed based on the updated rendering of local bus routes.

I split out the Portland-area public transport routes into it's own wiki page:
osm.wiki/Portland,_Oregon/Transit_Route_Relations
I added placeholder for various bus routes for surrounding transit agencies.

Please stop using highway=living_street for these minor roads. Please replace highway=living_street with highway=service and service=driveway.

I've mentioned this before and you did not respond and continue to prolifically make these changes. Why do you keep doing this?

What are you trying to represent with the highway=track inside of a parking lot?

It was me that was confused about the mailbox location. There is a mailbox here.

I just walked by here and can't see a mailbox here. If I can't figure out where the node was meant to be placed, I'll delete it. As far as tagging in general goes though, I prefer to omit the name tag on mailboxes, but use the operator tag with a value of "United States Postal Service"

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.