I added shop=groomer to the old tagging and took out the duplicate tag. Take a look/no further action is needed.

Hi again,
Looks like The Dog Pawlour was already tagged as well, however it was not completely tagged and not named properly, perhaps that's why it seems like it was missing. Need to merge the two info together, let me know if you don't understand what I mean.

Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMaps.
I saw your edit here and it appears to be a duplicate. The building is already tagged as a bakery shop for ButterCream. May want to double check the existing data and clean up redundant data. Thanks!

btw speaking of ds8x I still am not sure how to handle note/3210468 - he's absolutely right that we shouldn't have 3 identically named buildings here...but clearly they're related. Ponder, ponder...

Well it looks a bit more tidy (and correct) if apartment complex names only shows up once on the map, preferably something that covers the whole area.

I tend to make one big landuse=residential residential=apartments for the whole complex and putting the name there, so that each building is clearly related to the complex as they are within the complex(landuse).

Then I've been marking the buildings' name if they have names, but for the most part they don't - but perhaps the buildings have a letter or number (building 1, building 2, etc.) and that I put in the "ref" tag.

However there are always exceptions! The main exception is If the apartment "complex" only owns one building then I put the apartment "complex" name in the building's name. However if they own commons (leisure= like pools, dog parks, tennis courts, etc.) then the landuse= makes more sense.

At least this is my opinion! I can't say this is "best" but at least it reduces the amount of text printed everywhere yet all objects within the landuse= are still related to the main object. Relations also work - but I reserve this for landuse that's not contiguous and this I've seen places too.

Yep, should get ds8x in this, help do some artwork edits too, not just do streetcomplete :)

https://www.missionrockresidential.com/apartments/co/broomfield/summit-at-flatirons/

Oops! Typo on "Summti" on the landuse, probably should add residential=apartments on the landuse. Also probably don't need the same name for each of the buildings, unless they are really named as such?

Hi, thanks for adding these art installations, but I was wondering some of these I couldn't quite make out the background and match with satellite imagery. For instance "Totem", at node/9738917452 appears in front of a plain building in satellite imagery, but the photograph in the image= tag appears in front of a black tar roofed, intricately porched house, which I don't see anywhere nearby. Perhaps it's further to the north? There's that Bridgestone tire dealer in the photograph that would be nice to add too. I haven't been to Greeley in about a year or so, alas I can't verify the locations, I might have to go kartaview Greeley for fun...

Sorry would like to add: I'm commenting just because there seems to be little consensus on what to do with the buildings destroyed by the Marshall Fire. I know that people have post-mortem *added* buildings that were completely destroyed by the fire and would like to hear some ideas on what should be done for these?

Hi, I had already marked that the building was destroyed and deleting it wasn't necessary - yet, but granted yes they have started to tear down the remaining structure. What I'm not sure is if they have started constructing a new building or has this land been left fallow. In either case the name of the development "Element" has been deleted, whether the new building will also be named by Marriott or not? Should the construction area be marked as such so that people can find this former hotel location?

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 highway=corridor 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 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 node/9438483221 is already mapped as an area at 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?