Is there a reason why you tagged a whole bunch of houses as offices, when they clearly aren't?

It looks like you used 'building:part=yes' on everything here. Was that an accident, or are you halfway through more-detailed mapping of them?

Please don't re-tag ordinary sidewalks as bicycle paths.

Welcome to OSM!

Adding "bicycle=designated" to a cycleway is redundant -- the "cycleway" tag itself means "a route designated for bicycle use".

Please, *please* don't use roads as the edges of a landuse multipolygon. It's going to make it very difficult to modify either the roads or the landuse, and if a standard for mapping roads as areas is ever developed, it'll make it impossible to draw proper road areas.

Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Did you know that you can quickly square up the corners of a building by hitting the "Q" key, or by right-clicking and selecting the "square" menu option?

"Living street" is pretty much a purely European concept. If you find yourself thinking of tagging something in the US as such, it's probably either a service road or a residential street.

My concern is things like Crooked Road (way/13834754) which appears to be a ten-mile-long Forest Service road, not a driveway.

All imagery I can find shows US-12/US-93 as two lanes each way with a center turn lane, not a divided road. Has that changed?

You've got some extremely long service roads here. Are you sure you've classified them correctly?

You've applied the "office" tag to a great many things that aren't offices. Is there a reason for that?

Hopefully you'll find fewer of my early crap map changes in the near future. I came across this while researching the 130+ named places in Spokane County. So far, I've been able to confirm the accuracy of just under half of them, and found clear errors in about a quarter.

(And the "Telido Station" development is looking very much like a "was" rather than an "is". The last mention in the Spokesman-Review was in 2008, the website went offline in 2016, and satellite imagery of the area shows no construction as of last month.)

Could you be a bit more careful when adding place names from USGS topo maps? "Tolido" isn't the name of an inhabited place, it's the name of a now-destroyed survey marker: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=SV1197

Has something changed in the past two years? The last time I visited the Folsom Farm site, the road leading there was still very much a dirt road.

You're missing my point with #1. Yes, there's a label on the map that says "Fishtrap". There are a number of buildings near it. But there's no connection between the two: you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who would say "I live in Fishtrap" (or even "I lived in Fishtrap" -- the most recent obituary in the Spokane newspaper to mention Fishtrap dates from 1995).

This isn't the case with Tyler. Yes, again there's a label on the map and buildings nearby. But this time, there are also a few hundred people who would say "I live in Tyler".

There are two major problems with using "isolated_dwelling".

The first and more significant is that many of these names are no longer used to describe where people live. Someone might say they live by the Fishtrap exit off I-90, but they wouldn't say they live in Fishtrap. Many of these names are more than a century old, and represent farming communities that vanished in the 1920s and 1930s.

The second stems from the first: Nominatim and other geocoders consider isolated_dwelling to be part of the addressing hierarchy. For example, Nominatim will tell you that the farm near the intersection of Hein Road and Safety Pin Ranch Road has a "Gravelles" address, even though the Gravelles Post Office closed in 1896 and it actually has a "Davenport" address.

(A third problem is that armchair mappers, particularly from India, will spot an American farm or ranch nearby and see it as a village, when the cluster of buildings actually represents just a single family. They'll then move the node to the farm, to "correct" the "misplaced" village node.)

The description tag may not be for advertising, but it is for describing the location. I see nothing promotional about the description of Montana Peterbilt.

The vast majority of "hamlets" out in the middle of nowhere are former (or sometimes current) railway stops, and should be re-tagged as "locality", not "isolated dwelling".

Could you take a second look at this? I'm pretty sure the drydocks and loading docks you've added aren't correctly tagged.

The map display on openstreetmap.org is hardly the only place where OSM data shows up. In many of the other places, adding a business as both a point and an area is counterproductive:

* In OsmAnd, each business will show up twice, and since they're so close together, they'll crowd each other out and be shown as a small dot rather than an icon.

* In StreetComplete, the user will be asked twice for missing information about things like opening hours or wheelchair access, increasing the odds of a mistake.

* Pokemon Go uses OSM data: doubling up on a "no Pokemon allowed" object will increase the area of effect.

* Amazon uses OSM data to route delivery drivers: if a business is present twice, it's possible that a multi-part shipment will be given to two drivers rather than combined into a single delivery.

And so on.