osm.wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California

osm.wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California

Note duplicate addresses on some apartment complexes that need units surveyed

osm.wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California

osm.wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California

osm.wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California

osm.wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California

It is. The data seems accurate from both a ground survey and satellite spot checking. Do you want me to revert it?

I can’t quote policy, but based on the way that on-street parking is mapped, I suspect that it is to account for complex, indeterminate parking lots (like Holiday’s, if you count the side and back parking) where there is not a clear perimeter but there is a clear sense of relation between the spaces. I waver in how I treat compound parking lots like this because it doesn’t seem like there’s a clear convention.

That makes sense. I'll do that

Alright. I might disagree with you about "Downtown" as there is an official area, but otherwise that makes sense. Maybe some subdivisions like Vin Knolls which have a single collector road.

As for the sidewalks, I'm in the process of reverting my changesets. The data is iffy and probably not worth the work.

It’s only the south end, where the furniture store used to be.

I see. I think that may have been a JOSM thing. I don't recall making the relationship for those roofs. I did change some of the tagging on the bus stop to be a bit more accurate but I agree it's not quite up to snuff. I've been meaning to ground survey the area and make it a bit more kosher. I have learned a bit more about relations since and I'm practicing on some simpler stuff like parking lots/parking spaces. If I get to this before you do, I'll make sure to do it properly.

Good point. I'll leave them unnamed

Yeah, you're right. I changed them to be under construction. I've been using the ESRI clarity layer, which is pretty similar to the ESRI World Imagery at the highest zoom level but I'll just use the default if that's what you think will work better