Hello, the Swavu,
Thanks so much for catching that! I have been double checking because I was afraid a couple shared nodes might have slipped through my radar. I’ll keep an extra eye out moving forward.

VLD176

Good morning, vectro.
Thanks for catching that! The open data parcel maps that I was using to confirm addresses as I was scanning through the area only showed 529 on the lot. From ground imagery both 527 and 529 exist, but since I'm not local, it's difficult to know which building is which and assign the numbers appropriately. Additionally, since I was creating similar two-building relations (see 532 Through St and 515/539 Reed St) for single address lots in the area to avoid duplicate addresses on buildings, it’s entirely possible I just looped this lot in as well. I can add 527 to the address on the relation or break the relation up appropriately if you happen to know which building is exactly which number.
Awaiting your response,
Arianna

Hello! Changeset has been reverted in changeset/145349172 due to the false nature of the edits.

Hello! This changeset has been reverted in Changesets 145348969 and 145349069.

Good morning,
Thank you for the question.
When adding the building polygons to the area, there were existing address nodes (as mentioned in my changeset comment) from a previous import. This tag was added in that original import to most nodes that indicated more than one residence in a building. As I merged, I was cleaning up, to the best of my ability, the tags that were irrelevant as well as clarified the addr:unit=* tag to only include the numbers/letters of the unit. A couple of the tags slipped through it appears, but I've gone through and removed the handful in Newport Beach now.
For more information on the original address node import, you can visit that wiki page here: osm.wiki/Orange_County_Building_and_Address_Import . There is a bit about how they translated the tags from the source to tags applicable to OSM that touches on the appearance of the addr:unit=Apartment tag.
-Arianna

Hey Alex,
I just wanted to reach out about edits to object way/1191248737?
According to OSM Standards, negative layer tags should only be used for objects that are underground and should not be used to clear a validator warning. (layer=*)
Awaiting your response,
Arianna

Hello Sydney Painter,

I wanted to reach out and inquire what the source for these name changes was, as most of them are major roadways with established nomenclature. I myself could not find any evidence, such as news articles, that would indicate name changes in the area. The ground footage still has street signs for the original names as well. I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,
VLD176

Again thank you for catching that, it has been corrected!
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115717591

Thank you so much for pointing this out to me! I will be sure to keep an eye out for this as I merge existing data nodes to new building polygons!

I apologize for the mistake, the correction has been made as requested. I have attached the service road to the sidewalk. Thank you for your feedback!