When you're tracing buildings, please square your corners (select the building and hit the "Q" key). It makes for much nicer-looking outlines.

Thanks. That'd been bothering me for a while, but I hadn't been able to get up there to check things out.

I've reverted this changeset. There's been some recent construction in the area, and even the latest imagery is outdated.

Please don't do huge edits like this. It's not showing up properly in any of the QA tools, so it's impossible to tell if there are any mistakes.

Is there a reason why you turned a religious school into a church?

I noticed you added a bunch of nodes with nothing but an elevation tag. Was this intentional?

In my survey notes, I described it as "a bridge or tunnel" in the area of a golf course. Judging from the aerial imagery, it's a culvert-style tunnel containing either a service road or a golf cart path connecting two halves of a golf course.

In the western United States, a common way of grade-separating a major highway and a minor road is to run the road through a large-diameter culvert. It's faster, cheaper, and easier to maintain than either a concrete tunnel or a bridge.

Is there a reason why you deleted the road?

Could you please use more descriptive changeset comments? It makes it easier to figure out what you're trying to do.

Is there a reason you deleted a bunch of sidewalks and the Kalispell Police Department?

Is Meridian Road really one-way over its full length? The road markings don't look correct for that.

Official maintenance isn't the only reason to call something "not a track". If it can be easily driven by an ordinary car, rather than requiring something high-clearance, I'd call it "minor/unclassified" at least to the turnoff of the Rocky Lake boat launch.

Rocky Lake Road looks like a fairly substantial road in the aerial imagery. Are you sure it's a track and not a regular road?

Could you please pay more attention to what the AI is telling you to do? By my count, this changeset mapped: 1) A building that was actually three buildings, 2) A building overlapping a parking lot, 3) A building that was demolished about five years ago, 4) A building that was actually two buildings, and 5) Two buildings that only vaguely resembled the actual structures.

Please be more careful when you're adding buildings. In particular, this building (way/860887050) was already on the map as "recently demolished".

Are you sure about the routing of Bacon Loop Trail? When I hiked it about a decade and a half ago, it had just (as in, earlier that week) been re-routed away from Bean Creek, and no longer followed the lines on the topo map.

When you're moving business information to building outlines like you did here, could you please make sure you don't delete address information in the process?

Generally the only reason to map individual units as separate outlines is if they're physically independent -- you could knock one down and the others would stay standing. That's usually quite obvious from looking at the roof, and the roof of this building is just as clearly a single piece. Addressing of individual units within a building can be handled just fine with address nodes.

A good example of the "physically independent" situation would be this section of Sprague: osm.org/#map=19/47.65705/-117.38177

Thanks for your contributions!

The best available imagery for rural Spokane County is generally "Esri World Imagery". It's not quite as new as the default Bing imagery, but it's far sharper. You can access it through the 'background settings' panel (the button that looks sort of like three stacked sheets of paper).

In the southwest corner of this group of buildings, you've drawn what looks like a single large building in six separate parts. Is there a reason for this?