Indeed, you are correct. The pictographs faulted in iD.

I tagged it as a roof. I already had the minimum height in there.

Okay, I think I have done that. Take a look?

Well, it's probably worth discussing. The Shed has a retractable roof. I am guessing that the height of 48 meters is the height of the retractable roof. That is the height that is indicated for the building as a whole, while there was a building part half the building that is indicated at 40 meters, which I assume is the building roof when the retractable roof is extended. I opted to delete that part, since the retractable roof is really the building part, not the overall building I think. I could see making the retractable roof a separate building part, but the idea is it moves, of course, so I'm not sure it makes sense to map it as a fixed position.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143591252

It’s rather confusing. The website for the former venue still seems to work. Perhaps they haven’t finished the transition yet.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141584006

Yes, even better. I was editing on Go Map and it didn’t suggest that. Didn’t know it was an option. Thanks.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140701693

I doubt it. I didn’t notice it. It was preexisting in this node, which I merged into the way for the building: node/2710918116/history

Yes, you’re right. I hadn’t noticed it wasn’t description.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/139831445

It looked too daunting to revert the changeset and start over, so I added back footpaths in a new changeset.

Resolving the "Crossing highways" warning. My understanding is that a footpath and a pedestrian area should not overlap unless they are on different levels. In other words, for example, mapping "highway=pedestrian" through an area that is already mapped "highway=pedestrian" and "area=yes" would be redundant. Thus the instruction on the wiki: "Also other paths such as highway=footway as well as roads have to connect with the edge of the pedestrian area where they intersect. [However, note that few routers will route through the area, most will route around the edge of it.]"
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/136676204

Yes indeed. Here, all building parts are within the building outline.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/132614547

Thanks for that.

I think I've corrected the bus routes, but let me know if I'm mistaken.

"Dual carriageways are not appropriate for roads that have no physical separation such as roads with single-marked centerlines, flush medians, channelized left turn lanes, or two way left turn lanes."

Surf Ave has flush medians and channelized left turn lanes, not physical separation, at least in the imagery I accessed. Is that not correct?

I've mapped it as a land use feature temporarily.

Okay, I'll connect the lawn to the path again.

There's a sign in the middle of the lawn, but I can't make out what it says from the images I have access to. It's circular and the bottom reads "Parks and Recreation". Do you know what it says?

I'd like to map the garden. If not park, what would you like it to be tagged as?

Why did you delete the park area at the end of Stillwell Avenue?

The lawn at the center of the park connects to the west park of the looped path at due west. Why did you delete those nodes?

Can you say more about that?

The way you describe it, it sounds similar to the Diamond District.

way/702492597

The Diamond District is mapped as an area, commercial land use, a neighborhood, and a tourist attraction. But not as a shopping center, which would imply a more distinct entity than it actually is.

Is that an accurate comparison?

Is there something in the zoning map that defines the area?