I don't agree with occupant vs building. There are special cases where the building may be historic and actually has a name -- but the shop is different than the historic name of the building -- and this would make it very difficult to map both without my method of building not merged with shop.

Just a comment about "both" -- meaning both a node and an area -- the intent was having the area marked as a shop and have the poi marked as a shop -- this is double tagging and is very frowned upon. However if the building is a building and the shop is a node, this is no longer "both" and it also opens the possibility for multiple shops in the building.

Yes the apartment complex + shops at level 1 is actually very common and becoming more common in high pop areas. I tag the building as apartments and put however many POI shops on the building. This should be fine too.

And of course, sharing is the third category...but that's kind of a given...

IMHO merging POIs with their buildings should not be done if you're not sure they also own the building. If they're renting or don't know I'd leave it as POI.

This doesn't do anything with restrictions. I'd either revert as there's no need for this, else you would have to break up the road to dual carriageway (and remove the turn restrictions as they would be implicit with the split.)

Fixes needed.

Beat me to it, thanks for understanding!

Oh I see now. Yes Tiger has a numerical ordinal versus spelled out. Alas we try to match what's on the street so we should keep "Ninth" as that's what the street signs say in Streetside photos.

Tiger has been known to be wrong (though in this case it's symbolically correct.)

I'm going to change it back.

Hi, is there a reason why you changed "Nineth" to "9th" without changing it for the whole length of the street? Was there a sign on the street indicating as such? note/4461310 alerted this as a possible mistake.

... and hit submit before finishing the changeset comment. but anyway also changed a few service roads to driveways for indivduals, marked some roads as unpaved where visible in sat imagery, and straightened a few roads

I noticed you added protected bike lanes. However the main street has bike tagging - since you added the bike lanes, the street tagging now needs to have bicycle access removed. Is this what you want?

Access=no is clearly incorrect as well, these paths you are editing are indeed used for walking from hole to hole as well as for golf carts.

You're making the map solely for your use instead of making the map available for everyone's use and this is problematic.

Yes private driveways should be marked. Anything seen in life or satellite imagery gets drawn.

Agree with above, they should not be deleted, thank you woodpeck for reverting. I am curious as to what your use model that would require these paths be omitted? Perhaps it's best to change your software to simply avoid walking paths that cross over golf courses much like crossing over military bases, private industries, etc. which are likewise marked on the map? Please do let us know and maybe we can think of a solution that would help you.

Was the JoDean's building demolished?

For shops that aren't actively open and selling, they shouldn't be added or at least a construction:amenity should be used. Also if the name of a shop is unknown, it's better to leave them blank. These are both suggestions as they make searching easier.

very well, it shall go poof.

moge subsequently closed in the 10 months you had the note open?

What is the brand of the convenience store, this still hasn't been answered. Also the relation relation for it makes no sense, the transit station relation is for the building and not for station.

Are these already built and on the ground? Please be aware that your edits are visible by everyone in the world!

BTW, if interested or for fun, search for Hygiene, Colorado - that's how I'd expect an unincorporated area gets mapped since there's no real boundary that tells who needs to pay taxes or not. They even have a fire department and a post office...

It was indeed someone else but brought up a very good point. I'm not familiar with California unincorporated areas but things but most of the unincorporated pseudo-cities Colorado don't have administrative boundaries since they were always ad-hoc. It's weird that California Park had a boundary which implies there is some government but if it's arbitrarily added to if some land owner says so, then there's really no boundary...

Cool, just wanted to verify since the anonymous user did bring up a point:
Usually administrative boundaries means there's an administration or some form of low level government, so perhaps this label might not be best, alas, I don't know what's the best way or maybe this is fine, but just wanted to make sure.