Oh, yeah I just meant that it's new since the ways were last updated, I'm sorry if I'd gotten people's hopes up about new imagery

And it looks like I'm well on my way to following along. There's still that slight hope that I must be operating on where maybe this will help people realize just how much parking they're drowning in, but an unfortunately more likely outcome of all this is probably just going to be a few Tesla owners who are slightly happier their car's summoning feature works slightly better :/

Right now I'm inclined to go with the street sign, per osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground at least for the road way. Perhaps the addresses should stay "lane" if that's how residents receive mail though, changing those might've been a bit overzealous of me

Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure on its tagging, so I just chose what seemed to be one of the closer options. Definitely feel free to update it to a more correct tagging

I'm not sure why both TIGER and Ada County Assessor's data both show a short section of "Dreyfuss Lane". No street signs show that, only "street", at least as of today

Good catch, I've gone and fixed it in changeset/111627012

Yeah, I agree it's not quite the most accurate representation, it's not like there's a segment of pathway between the sidewalk and the street. However I think that there needs to be at least some sort of connection to the street to show it's possible to reach the street from a pathway, as opposed to when there's a strip of grass between the sidewalk and road (like with way/913614219). I'd think there's at least enough precedent for including ways that aren't quite physically there but are absolutely necessary for routing purposes, such as with putting a way through a pedestrian area (like area:highway=pedestrian#Correct_tagging suggests) or with unmarked crosswalks. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it an unmarked crossing and maybe add the curb, but it would feel wrong to me to suggest it's not possible to get to the street from the path

Oh that is a weird discrepancy. I'd made the change based off the park's sign to the north of the sculpture, so it seems they've decided to go with 1100. I wonder why they broke the even/odd rule here

I saw Plaza Shops Drive when I went by last, at least at the Linder intersection, so it looks like the signs haven't been updated yet

It's definitely a weird situation. I agree that east of Eagle Rd it has that weird thing where one side's got addresses that refer to East and one to West because of the city borders. The reason I changed it to East west of Eagle Rd is that after the new construction, all of the street signs now say East no matter which side of the road they're on. I also can't find any addresses for still-standing buildings that refer to West other than 13965 West Chinden, so I left that stretch of road next to it as West. Other than that, it seems like everyone's just agreed to call it East, even if it ends up with interesting addresses like "2425 East Chinden, Boise ID"

I'll verify the directional prefixes on the ground for Chinden soon

I got the chance to check today, and it's indeed signed as W Oakhampton Ct, that was a great catch!

Ah, interesting, River Shade might've just been the proposed name then. I'll have to check the signage when I can to see what's on the ground

Oh no worries, I was already doing some work in the area and figured I'd take care of a few while I was at it

No worries, yeah it sounds like access=customers would be the most accurate here, I've gone ahead and updated it to that