Please note that only buildings should be tagged with building=*. Since this are is encompassing the entire school grounds, just amenity=school is sufficient

Hi,
Thanks for realigning these roads! In the future, I recommend using the 'Oregon DOGAMI Lidar' background layer to align wooded roads/trails like these. Also, please note that we don't use the name field to describe attributes of a feature like access restrictions. Instead an access tag should be used:
osm.wiki/access

I believe Magnolia being secondary here makes more sense as it's important to distinguish Magnolia from other surrounding primary roads such as Beach and Brookhurst. Those streets get a lot more traffic, which is evident by how they have three or even four lanes in each direction as opposed to just two.

While functional classification maps are a good start to identify what highway classifications roads should be, I would avoid following them one hundred percent of the time. A lot of the times functional classifications are based on previously planned projects that were never completed. For example, Gilbert from La Palma to Orangethorpe was likely classified as a minor arterial because of a planned overpass over I-5.

Lately, the US community has been moving towards forming a coherent network for each classification, meaning that stubs, particularly secondary and above, should be avoided (see osm.wiki/United_States/Highway_classification)

Here's a useful diary entry from another fellow mapper on classifying roads in the LA area: osm.org/user/willkmis/diary/399345

Almost got it, for multipolygons you only need to have the tags you want on the relation. It looks like the outer way also had `natural=wood`. Since this way seemed to follow the park boundary, I've changed the outer way of this multipolygon to be the way used for the park in osm.org/changeset/145588701

Yeah, that looks right. Thanks for pointing out that wiki article, didn't realize `highway=service` is still preferred in these cases.

As I mentioned earlier, please don't use Esri Clarity as its very outdated. This changeset adds sand traps that were removed at least five years ago.

As others have pointed out to you, please avoid deleting and redrawing features and instead realign existing features.

Even though HPU is here, the whole shopping center shouldn't be tagged as a school. Please create a separate point for HPU instead.

FYI, Esri Clarity is almost a decade old (from 2014). I would only use it as a secondary reference in addition to a more up to date source such as Bing.

Based on this changeset from another mapper, it appears that this trail and parking lot no longer exists: osm.org/changeset/138284226

Aerial imagery also suggests this.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for adding this business. Please note that most national brands like Claire's have their own feature type which automatically applies the correct tags (`shop=fashion_accessories` in this case instead of `merchandise=Jewelry`)

Hi,
Just a heads up that `highway=service` is required as its a top level tag. the `service=*` tag describes what type of service road it is. Please refer to osm.wiki/Key:service

FYI I've gotten permission for us to use Crook County's 2023 imagery and in the middle of adding it to the backgrounds list (https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/pull/2167). It might take a while for it to show up, so for the meantime you can use this url as a custom layer:
https://geo.co.crook.or.us/server/rest/services/Hosted/Crook_2023_3in9in/MapServer/tile/{zoom}/{y}/{x}

Thanks for the heads up! I've retagged it in osm.org/changeset/144775536

Hi,
Please don't add unsigned route numbers to ref=*, instead unsigned_ref=* should be used:
osm.wiki/Key:unsigned_ref

Hi,
Please don't add unsigned route numbers to ref=*, instead unsigned_ref=* should be used:
osm.wiki/Key:unsigned_ref

Hi,
What is the source for these changes? Unless this has changed relatively recently, this stretch of Barbur/Natio is still signed as OR 99W.

I originally split some of these islands into dual carriageways as other traffic islands on Foster that were there before the road diet (ie Foster/Cora) were already mapped as dual carriageways. Also, at least to me, it didn't really make sense to have the crossing node in the middle of the refuge island.

As Minh mentioned, mapping refuge islands as dual carriageways is common practice: for example Grand River Ave in Detroit (osm.org/#map=19/42.40571/-83.23111) and Chaparral Rd in Scottsdale (osm.org/#map=19/33.50966/-111.91284).

If you feel strongly about this, I encourage you to discuss this with other mappers on either the forum or Slack to form a consensus on whether these should or shouldn't be mapped as dual carriageways. I want to make sure these are mapped consistently.

Hi,
Thanks for adding these new roads! I know this is an old changeset, but just wanted to let you know that road names shouldn't be abbreviated in OSM (see osm.wiki/abbreviation) It looks like another mapper has since unabbreviated these road names.

Happy Mapping!

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for mapping features at The Living Desert. Please note that animal enclosures have their own feature type and should not be tagged as parks or commercial areas. Also, buildings in OSM should only cover its footprint (ie osm.org/way/47512765).