https://parks.coloradosprings.gov/sites/default/files/parks_recreation_and_cultural_services/trails/homestead_trail_wayfinding_map.pdf

Hmm...There is so much more to the trail and park than captured here...will have to rethink this more

But you do have to admit:
At least since indoor=corridor should be a closed area, and highway=corridor should be a way, one of the two better fits the situation... not to mention there are validation tools that enforce indoor=corridor to be an area.

Well with the unclear documentation and validators agreeing with me even if it's unpopular, if you're really that adamant to tagging in a way that's also not clear, that's fine with me. Still think there's nothing wrong based on the available and unclear documentation. Even osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor does not say it's "wrong" - the wiki would indicate it should NOT be used. Also popularity does not mean correctness, especially since OSM indoor mapping itself isn't very popular - especially with the fact that multilevel corridors is not well defined especially with points that lay on top of each other but should not be connected due to floor numbers.
Next time please be clear as to exactly what tag you have a problem with. Again I'm ambivalent to either method due to the indoor mapping deficiencies of OSM - even mapping the building mapping of parking garages is poorly if not impossible to define.

This tagging methodology where indoor=corridor is applied to a way and not an area does not follow the guide described by osm.wiki/Key:indoor . Documentation needs and validators need to be changed to note that indoor=corridor can be applied to both ways and areas for this to be considered proper tagging methodology.

typo in previous comment - apply the regexp replace:

s/documentation is incorrect/documentation is the incorrect tagging method/

Also want to note that iD also added

resolved:mismatched_geometry:area_as_line

indicating that someone wrote in the validators that I did correct an outstanding issue, so we have a serious disconnect here. I still believe the documentation is incorrect and the sole "correct" way is to use the older tagging system as long as we don't know the actual area to do the indoor tagging.

If you have an example of another indoor=corridor mapping in some other mall or whatnot, please show me and let me see if there are any validator errors on that, and I'll see how to match it if it does not give validator errors.

In that webpage indor=corridor says it should be an area. So should the wiki documentation need to be changed too?

Hi, Thank you for adding what you see on the road to OSM. I did have a comment: I noticed you added a few turn restrictions and currently they're being flagged with errors and will be ignored by driving routers. Turn restrictions are relations that should contain three members: a from, a via, and to. These tell what should be restricted or enforced for people on the from street, that go through the via, and head to the to street. May need to revisit these turn restrictions and add the appropriate members. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. Thanks!

Hi, I think this aerodrome POI that was added here at osm.org/node/9438483221 is already mapped as an area at osm.org/way/368683795 . It depends on the render whether it shows up as the proper name, so it's not necessary to tag it again here?

ack. too far apart. sigh, should save individually...

BTW the original issue is that some of these ways were marked as indoor=corridor and the requirement is that this should be a closed area instead of a way. Based on the locations of the shops this couldn't be an area so I thought this was the best way to tag them. Is there a better way?

I think I might have made an error here, I noticed some issues in osmi that I haven't figured out how to fix... were there any specifics that were problematic?

Note to original drawing layout: we're not supposed to draw for the renderer and I'm sorry, on the flat OSM map the house should look like a rectangle. However you can study how to draw 3d buildings and get it to render nicely on f4map or osmbuildings, I put in a first pass schwag at drawing something that sort of looks like this house but not exactly. Feel free to improve on it.

oops didn't realize they were so far apart....

I fixed in changeset 115229508, hope this is correct, cant see imagery

Ah I see osm.org/relation/13658266 which captures the information I was expecting to see at the intersection. I think osm.org/relation/10668540 can/should be deleted. Thanks for the update!

If anyone finds an issue with this path/changeset due to the deletion, this route is now marked as osm.org/relation/13659236 which highlights the original cycle path. The original cycle path was a data violation due to having two traversable ways drawn on top of each other. Feel free to name this new relation - the original path did not have a name.

Hi, I don't understand this relation: osm.org/relation/13564790 - what are you trying to describe here?

Hi, I was wondering about osm.org/relation/10668540 - it's incomplete. I think you're local, could you describe this turn restriction, is it eastbound SW Scholls Ferry Rd turning left/north to SW Mountainside Wy or southbound SW Mountainside Wy turning left/east to SW Scholls Ferry Rd, or both?