Details of the 20 new ways that you added, including three car parks, are listed on page 2 below of Ways with one straggler on page three.
I can make out some of them in the achavi URL, including a rounded tank-or-something near one you shifted. (The washed-out-yellow is too close to the washed-out-green here with two of my on-screen clocks in those rich colours somewhat better.)
.
These deleted objects can in theory be restored to life with some Flash editor magic, if things are not too messy and if you think it is worth the bother.
.
I am not sure if I have the patience for this whole dry-run, so here we go

This one ... is .... well, eyeballing it, some six or so small buildings/sheds will be re-animated. Not too bad.
Nodes: 110 2810 76 Ways: 20 5 16 Relations: 000
The exact details on what 16 ways you deleted are listed directly below on this page, along with whatever random nodes will come back to life.
This works near the government buildings you moved, but does not touch them.
Will as usual start a dry-run first.

This is entirely to the west of Hillsboro. You seem to have done an almost equal amount of fixup to new imagery, and relatively few simple shifts of significance.
Nodes: 112 184 26 Ways: 17 27 2 Relations: 000
I am going to leave this one alone too, you can see what areas you might revisit (or just not bother) in
http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=55919084
or just review everything later with a bit more experience under the belt.
.
The next one is gonna be a biggie :-)

I'll leave this one alone then. That may mean problems down the line, and the golf course will be stuck like this. But the buildings you moved should be unaffected.
I'll comment this way on the rest of the changesets so we both know what to expect.

This is actually an interesting one at Woodland Park where I inspected.
There is not a consistent offset between Bing (DG new) and Classic Bing ESRI Clarity Mapbox, around the park.
In fact, at Goose River, there seems almost no offset, compared to some 4m up in town.
The Cycle Map layer has coarse contour lines which only show me it's not flat. But as an imagery layer, USGS Topo maps show a rather steep cut left by the river.
Why you can't really take the default Bing imagery from satellite for granted, is shown elsewhere in the US where straight roads were edited in a hilly area into a crooked mess. Or the Parallel World Of Bing as commented earlier today to a similarly offset changeset in Bayern. One of many alternative realities to choose from!
I saw the same thing around the Lake of the Ozarks coast in Missouri while editing there recently, images align at the water, then get way out on land, no doubt similarly hilly or worse than here.

Here,
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=55948026
you have made some major changes to the municipal boundaries, as well as some minor ones (not sure if anything is Bing-related).
You've also further adjusted the golf course as well, so, well....
Is it trivial to re-create the admin boundaries? I see one is at v18, another is here at v1 and will be deleted, but should be no problem to identify and undelete, if you want me to make the effort of going that route.
Other geometry adjustments seem trivial.
.
Not reverting this without a clear go-ahead... Process put on hold... Shutting system down... Awaiting further instructions... Exterminate...

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/56056350 where the changeset comment is: Undo misguided alignment to newer satellite rather than aerials

This one is coarse refinement of golf course boundaries, plus a couple small street tweaks at - huh, unnamed driveway and drive.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=55948216
Andrew Buck added the golf course; you've tweaked it four times up to v5. After completely reverting everything, you'll have to re-do your golf course changes, or perhaps I can rescue v5 to move, or not.
This would be the first (your latest Bing) changeset I revert, then work backwards.
.
Shall I? May I? Should I? Dare I?

New car park from new Bing, as well as older buildings shifted back into place. Nearby buildings seen to be off. Leaving this smaller changeset alone, it aligns to Mapbox.

This can be seen in detail as https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=56003869 and visual inspection firing up an editor shows added Bing items have been aligned to z20 Clarity Mapbox Classic etc. imageries. This is repairing things and I'm a'gonna keep me big fat mitts off.

Hi,
Sorry for not replying sooner. After spending time in the fresh air, I somehow was motivated to recover from my sleep deprivation. And I think it worked, so four days later...
There are changes happening in other parts of the US to the Mapbox/DigitalGlobe Premium layers within the past weeks or days, so at least around major cities, I'd have to review the imageries before everything I write.
That said, if the Mapbox imagery only allows you up to native zoomlevel 19, and is visually identical to ESRI Clarity, and the rest are awful blurs with obvious perspective issues, stick with the former.
.
There are areas where there had been, until a couple years ago, much sharper and better imagery from USGS. In one area I mapped, probably West Virginia or nearby, there was maybe a metre or two difference, and as you could get two crisp zoomlevels further in to see details on sheds and such, plus those details were aligned to buildings I'd traced earlier but someone adjusted, there are probably allowable government references in detail, maps that are accurate and better than the USGS Topo maps, but which aren't listed as imageries.
As the original Bing imageries were replaced by z20 images with a high level of correction, that became my reference. You don't see it here, but where I can compare, it aligns well.
Now in other parts of the country, there is, say Texas Orthophoto also at z20 which may not quite align in detailed editing, and ESRI/Mapbox seem to have z21 and even z22 imageries in some areas.
These I sort of have to, by default, assume are aligned and corrected well to meet the standards of the sponsoring agency. We are talking of pixels with 5cm resolution or so, versus the coarseness of maybe ten years ago or actual satellite photos of today.
I'm sure there are better descriptions and tutorials about this; I last skimmed a german wiki page about aerial imageries and offset not long ago.
If you have a known-good map reference, as are available for parts of germany, that can be used for precise alignment.
The better the imageries become, the more uncorrected mapping/perspective errors come into play, like tracing the roof but failing to slide it to match the ground level at which the image was aligned to a particular elevation model.
The general rule I see is, align to what exists. Of course, if someone starts and adds things from 4-metre-off aerials with hills and all, that's sub-optimal, but those images are pretty rubbish to start with.
Until you get better imagery here, the oldest but clearest is probably best for alignment. Once you can fill in the hairpieces of pedestrians, then you can worry about correcting things that don't quite meet up, and perhaps reference known-position markers will be visible.
Short answer? It Depends. For now, Mapbox. It's known old; you can update it from the newer Bing/DG/ESRI.
.
That off-topic rambling unintelligible drivel out of the way, I want to apologise for not attending to the reverts sooner, and ask, should I start?
If you have changed anything since, like moved a road or building in the past two days, I think it'll be left alone from your newer changes.
If you've not moved the majority of things, I think most buildings should pop back into place.
That said, I'll start, since you seem to wish this, and I'll attempt to summarise what works and what fails (I've so far only done successful reverts with untouched items, so not witnessed things crashing and burning, yet).
I'll try to do a slow-but-good job with this...

Hi Mike,
Sorry for the delay in my reply. I had one of the regular cullings that loses all my bookmarked pages of interest, so I'm hoping I can find them all from Pascal's helpful website.
You will find that OpenStreetMap develops in stages, all different. For example, you have opened a lot of Notes (bug-reports) asking for many businesses and buildings to be added.
There was a stage when mappers were content to only add point nodes for a few businesses and call it a day. In other parts of the world, even in the US, business buildings are being fleshed out with multitudes of parts for a 3-D rendering. Also, I see little in your area of private houses, garages, even sheds, that are standard in many parts of the world, and with time and enthusiastic mappers, will certainly be seen here.
I had, before my crash, discovered a well-mapped neighbourhood with every private drive to every house marked and more details than that, also within the US - somewhere. I could trivially point you to a smaller town where more than 5 years ago an enthusiastic mapper drew in every single house and driveway, creating an island of detail, which over time has become surrounded by a whole countryside of detail. But that's not here.
Different mappers work to different standards in different areas. Perhaps this mapper only worked in the one smaller area. But as a general rule, we go by the philosophy that mappers are building upon each others' work, and do not take kindly to tearing down that work without good reason. Something you don't see as sensible, may quickly become established. Suppose I draw in an island of private homes, sheds, and garages nearby? Will you delete it too because it's out of place where the default is only street lines?
Or because there are no housenumbers?
A private drive is a simple linear way to express there is a residence or other building that my skill level can't map to my satisfaction, or to orient where surveyed housenumbers should be mapped. There is also a firm that is adding them for the aid of, well, let's say paperboys as an easy-to-understand shortcut - I think US postal laws limit adverts into the mailbox to the Post.
.
You will never find consistency in a project like OSM with as many different ideas as thousands or millions of mappers. Only if the number of mappers dwindles down to nothingness, or if orders from above arrive from Our New Ownership (all hail Niantic) to map in a particular style, only include this, exclude that, and lakes belong everywhere.
Remember, you may think drawing the homes is more important *before* the driveways, but you can't decide that for everyone. I'd rather leave buildings with more than six nodes, or which I can't see in zoomlevel 21 imagery, for a better mapper than myself and do what I can to improve the map within my limitations today.
.
The building you added/modified is an interesting case. I think it's in its third revision; apologies if I didn't note your name carried through. I know it's got some magic that breaks the normal tools to follow its history.
It caught my eye due to your wish to map buildings from a smartphone/tablet (you said Android), and a good example how you've started with something complicated, my first impression was that it had gotten worse than in v2.
Making perfect 90° angles is important - my editor has the quadrilateralise() function that does mysterious mathematics but somehow fails when I have too many nodes, or too close - I've not tried to understand the math. Your chosen building also has a semi-hidden 45° roof side, and I believe others.
Good that you have found the better imageries. Never having used the Best Editor Of All, JOSM, myself, I have read the best buildings come from a plugin dedicated to providing the tools to draw as perfectly as I would like.
I still don't know if a touchscreen is helpful. Then, even with a fullsized tablet I can never use the kezboard as I like (where an IBM Model M clickety-click is the Holy Grail), always inadvertently hitting wrong functions; and for editing, a mouse can give me pixel-almost-perfect precision, rather than the many-cm inaccuracy of me fat fingers.
.
All that aside, I'm going to try and visualise your building history here.
And please keep in mind, OSM does not strive for a uniform standard, or style, or level of perfection, but always tries to get better. I'd love to point you to many examples of Best Of OSM (or Worst) to show what others are doing, right or wrong. Some of these are examples of Tagging For The Renderer, a trap into which you have appeared to have slipped by referencing the appearance in your Pokémon Go, which is only one of probably thousands of depictions of the map data, and but one of millions of users ranging from businesses to goverment agencies.
Hope that clears things up. Your work was snared by a watch I'd placed out for a simple form of hotel SEO vandalism - deleting well-mapped buildings, service drives, pools, car parks in the vicinity of a hotel, presumably to make the advert marker for it stand out, so don't think I've got it in for you (I do ;-) because I want to see how well you can map from Android).

Hi again...
Sorry, I sent off that comment shortly before falling asleep, and before I saw you had done several more, more complex changesets, earlier that day.
I'm writing this shortly after awakening, and once in a Blue Moon I like to go outside, so if it's okay, I'll return to this after I dust the cobwebs into the corners of me brane, in a few hours.
If someone else wants to join in and do this, feel welcome. There look to be from the changeset descriptions up to ten that may be candidates (I only ran the newest three or four through achavi for a diff overview:
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?uid=609462#11/47.3914/-97.0529
)
Also, it may be possible to recover any additions you have drawn from scratch - but in the ``wrong'' places; I will look into this when I sprawl out on the floor later.

Hi Realj,
I am afraid you are partly correct in your changeset description.
You have moved the building to match a newer satellite image that is known not to be well aligned in many places.
The original position was traced from aerial (aeroplane) overflights that are much better corrected.
This means you have moved the building slightly to a wrong position.
Do you know you can choose the different, original, background and see the differences?
You should compare this and the other mapped sidewalks in the area against ESRI Clarity Beta, which is now available to you. I see most things line up well with this.
Then you can also adjust the newer Bing background so it lines up with the other features, rather than being some metres offset.
I hope you understand this, and that it helps...

Hi, me again...
It pains me to see you have another, more complicated changeset in which you have done more than just move buildings.
Here are the other two changeset discussions I have had, and plan to continue:
changeset/55787946
and
changeset/55795574
I hope this helps...

Hi Scoop,
The changeset description you gave here had me worried, and looking at your work, which must have taken some time, the worst I feared was true.
You are working in an area which is not well served by detailed aerial imagery, and by default you have used Bing, which is a satellite imagery provided by DigitalGlobe and known to have a signifigant offset in many areas.
I measured that the one building you shifted which I tested now has an offset of four metres from the position the old aerial imagery offered, which in this case is much closer to reality.
The older imagery, which includes some buildings you deleted, is available either as Mapbox, or now officially as ESRI (Clarity) Beta.
The third source is the USGS Large Scale imagery, which is poor in detail but well-aligned everwhere I have tested so that it is a reasonable reference.
Do you know about these alternate imagery layers, available to you with the kezboard command `b' ?
.
I have made comments to other changesets about this, but I have not yet made a template, nor noted the URLs to allow you to read what I wrote there.
If you want to work with Bing as the newest, you are also able to shift that to match the positioning of the other images.
I don't know if you want your work to be undone, but it is possible, if you agree things are now misplaced, and don't want to move things again. You would lose, as far as I see, only a few deleted buildings.
I hope this makes sense....
Thanks!

Hi Nice-one,
Many thanks for your great tools! The best excuse for not having a Real Life.
I was going to ask if your pages could link to overpass-api like above with HTTPS, which seems to work for me, but on closer inspection they seem not to finish loading after I massage the URL.
Or links like osm.org/... that get a redirect that take precious seconds of `lynx' status messages each time when I could view a hundred changeset comments a minute.
But that's secondary.
.
Mike, could you explain what your intentions were with the building here which ... no wait, this is weird.
I see you changed its geometry, but also introduced what we call a Verschlimmbesserung by not-right-angled corners, when several excellent aerial imageries are available.
Now this is really weird, the object history I see from the OSM data doesn't even show your changes, so there's some advanced sorcery here I don't think I want to understand without strong drink.
way/138230659/history

Probably the relations/role issue.
.
We'd be happy to help, like I've done for several users whose changeset comments showed me they had fallen into common traps that made the map worse for a while.
Thanks!

Hi,
Yes, Mapbox is the ``best'' but also the oldest, as it matches the ESRI Classic (oops, second time wrong) Clarity imagery provided by Bing here, and what I'm pretty sure the original roads were traced from.
It's a pity I probably can't simply undo your adjustment of each road segment change without losing all other work done.
So, for roadwork, Mapbox is best, also for tracing buildings that still exist unchanged.
For new buildings or new roads, then Bing, after first aligning it in the area you work in to lose the road offset. But in the hilly areas, you will have to repeatedly align the Bing imagery. And then try to see something in the blurry satellite view.
If I understand, the tools to move the background in your iD editor are found in the same place you select the background.
Happy to help save you extra work, and point out the choice between Old But Good, and Newer But Awful.

No, I don't think so. Constable and I have been working together with this user in her (guessing from username, may be his) area in the hopes of getting a good mapper by example.
I've a new - no, now two new messages awaiting me, first titled `apologies' so I'm giving meself a bit of time to get back in the frisky mood that defiled a fair number of bug-report Notes earlier, and mentally compose a proper response.
First I have to figure out how to parse the timestamps on the original changeset into a 24-hour format I understand better, ooh me brane
Thanks for keeping an eye on other user contributions and engaging with them in a friendly way, a skill I lack...

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/55906777 where the changeset comment is: Restoring my carefully-mapped unappreciated work