Looks great! Thanks for your contribution and for the descriptive changeset comment.

Hi, and thanks for your contribution. In the future, do you mind adding a descriptive changeset comment? That helps others know what you changed without having to manually inspect. (Especially since you're requesting review on your changes!)

Hi, and thanks for your contribution! This looks good to me. I did extend both sides' bike ways to Mission and Market streets so that cyclists won't be routed onto crosswalks.

Looks great. Thanks for your contributions!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, here are a few tips:

- The Description tag should be a concise description of the feature rather than a free-form ad space.
- Opening hours and address tags follow a specific syntax. It can sometimes be a little tricky but using this format makes it machine-readable, meaning apps and whatnot can parse it reliably.

I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!

Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, here are a few tips:

- It's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM wherever possible. ("N" -> "North")
- The Description tag should be a concise description of the feature rather than a free-form ad space.
- Opening hours tag follows a specific syntax. It can be a little tricky but using this format makes it machine-readable, meaning apps and whatnot can parse it reliably.

I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!

Looks great! Thanks for your contribution.

Looks great! Thanks for your contributions.

I just edited the area and building to try that suggestion out. Let me know your thoughts on this! I get that people are going to clash on some ideas so the last thing I want is silent edit-wars. If you feel strongly about having them a certain way I'm willing to just quit worrying about it and let you do your thing. :) Thanks for your contributions, regardless!

When it comes to tagging the outer area, I think I am still in favor of avoiding duplication by minimizing tags on the building. Perhaps a good compromise would be as follows:

For churches with a single building, meaning the vast majority, put all tags on the building way itself, except for landuse=religious on the outer "grounds" area.

For churches with multiple buildings, put all tags including amenity=place_of_worship on the outer area, leaving only building=church on the buildings.

This tracks pretty closely with the recommended method on the wiki: osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreligious#Usage

Re: cross vs worship icon, OSM Carto currently correctly uses the latter for denomination=mormon. But they have not updated it yet to correctly handle latter_day_saints or latter-day_saints since the church changed their mind on the mormon name. I looked at some github issues here and there earlier today and it sounds like they want to avoid implementing stuff for which the community has not settled on a common schema for. (Seems like someone needs to take ownership of this issue and do a global tag change, and spearhead the necessary renderer changes.)

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info! (I have this vague feeling I already asked you about this or something similar... Sorry if that's the case.)

Just a heads-up that when both building and outer church boundary is marked as amenity=place_of_worship, it's generally interpreted as two churches. (Two icons and labels rendered, two entries show up on searches, etc.)

For that reason, I've generally tried to put all tags on the outer area, then tag the building as building=church only.
I'm open to other strategies if you disagree with that. Let me know what you think.

Might I ask, what is your source on these changes? I might be wrong, but I think the USFS motor vehicle map shows many or all of these as public roads.

Thanks. My mistake

Hmm, at first I disagreed with your changes here, but after reading the wiki page I guess place=village is technically correct since AFAIK Lewiston and Franklin do have "few facilities available".

Gotcha. That makes sense!

I'm not too familiar with transmission line tagging, is "voltage=138000;138000" correct? For two separate lines or something? osm.org/way/45783089

What's your source on removal of these streams? Are you deleting features that don't appear on the old USGS topo maps?

Argh. I can't get these right. This was meant to be uploaded using my import account, Xvtn_Import.