This issue was resolved with changeset #179110019.

Hi Casey,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I made this change based on the advice from somebody else who told me that "crossing=marked" and "crossing=unmarked" were now deprecated tags and that "crossing=uncontrolled" is supposed to be used in their place.

After doing some reasearsh of my own I've realized that this advise was not correct. I will revert all crossings tagged uncontrolled and crossing:markings=no to crossing=unmarked (and leave crossing:markings=no in place). I appreciate the heads up on this issue!!

Hi there,

just for future reference please try and avoid binding landuse elements (for example, a park) directly to an adjoining road. This can create problems down the line when modifying the data. Mapping best practice is to keep landuse seperate from any other objects.

Cheers!

Source = government of Alberta Altalis under the open Data License - Alberta

apologies for large changeset

Hi there I know this is 4 years old but I was working in the area and just wanted to just leave a comment here to point out my disagreement with the naming decision on this changeset.

While I agree in principle with the concept of alining road names to their posted street signs, (and the wiki corroborates this method) there are a few significant issues here.

Firstly, despite street signs being displayed as "Township ## Road #" this is not the name of the road as it appears on a Civic address. The Civic address will always Read "Township Road ###" and the address placards issued by the County and located on the road themselves adhere to this format instead. My perspective is that the format of the civic address carries more weight than the format of the street signage.

Secondly, every township and range road is already using the naming format of "Township Road ###" (as per the original Geobase import) and the task of converting these across the entire County would not only be monumental, but risk creating inconsistencies and errors.

I decided to revert the naming on Highway 873 because although it is signed as "RGE 14 RD 4" in some spots, it is also signed as "SH 873" / "HWY 873" (more inconsistencies with signage) so I have renamed it to "Highway 873" for the sake of simplicity and added "Range Road 144" under the 'Alt_name' tag.

I'm partly writing this to spell out my own rationale as I had also contemplated changing these street names, but after some reflection I don't think it's the best idea.

3 Remaining Municipal Zones:

- Town of Tantramar
- Southeast Rural District
- Rural Community of Straight Shores

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know that mapping best practice is to seperate physical features (ie. tracks and roads) to administrative boundaries, as this creates significant headaches when managing this data on the large scale. I have removed the tagging from way/1416685289 as it was a boundary member that should not be tagged highway=track.

Feel free to ask me any questions. Thanks

L'importation des nouvelles frontières municipales NB (dès 2023) est maintenant fini à 86%

La comission des services régionaux de sud-est (près de Moncton) est la seule région qui reste à faire.

-

The import of new NB municipal boundaries (from 2023) is now 86% complete

The southeast regional service comission is the only region left to do (Moncton area).

use this query below. which will display all of the admin_level=6 municipalities which have been imported thus far. Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions. Thanks.

[out:json][timeout:25];
// gather results
relation["admin_level"="6"]["name:fr"]["name:en"]({{bbox}});
// print results
out geom;

just to clarify, I removed admin levels & tagging for the boundary members themselves, as the proper admin levels are still present in the various relations (county, municipal, parish level) that refer to them.

It's unclear to me why these were tagged the way they were in the first place; Grand Manan was tagged as admin level 2 (the international border is on a separate boundary to the west, so this is obviously not correct), and part of the shoreline along Saint John was tagged as admin level 4 (which is used for provincial boundaries... and there's already an existing admin level 4 provincial boundary (NB-NS) across the bay of fundy.)

I reviewed the wiki for guidance on tagging maratime borders as well as compared it to the tagging scheme for nova scotia to the south... and concluded that the tagging for these shoreline boundaries is only applicable to the local counties/municipalities/parishes so I decided to remove the admin level tagging altogether to make it consistent with the rest of NB's tagging scheme.

Feel free to revert this if you think I've made a mistake. I did NOT touch the international border.

Cheers

Thank you for pointing that out. I will go tackle those right now.

my JOSM crashed when I uploaded and glitched out this changeset so it only uploaded nodes but it's fine because I reuploaded the same file in a new changeset and everything seems to have transferred over. This was just the nodes for the boundary import .

"boundary=aboriginal_lands" not "boundary_aboriginal lands"

lmao

Hi there,

I just wanted to leave a quick comment asking if in the future you could avoid attaching landuse to boundaries & roads.

I have been working on an import of post-2023 NB municipal boundaries, and my work has been made more difficult due to features being snapped to the existing boundary members.

Maybe try and attach the residential to the CanVec forest tiles instead, or just leave them detached from anything. I have already fixed all the boundaries in the Fredericton region so you don`t need to worry about it but I just thought I'd let you know.

This makes it easier for me when I am downloading province wide boundary data, and reduces import conflicts. Maybe in the future if more boundary work needs to be done it is better to have them seperated.

Thank you !!

More details:

For the Saint marys FN the previous boundary was not accurate and had been attached to a ton of canvec stuff so I just deleted the existing and re-imported the correct geometry within the same relation.

I also changed the admin_level for first nations from 4 to 6 (most other places use 6, I`m not sure why it would be the same admin level as a provincial boundary but 6 makes more sense).

Added billingual names to all parishes and municipalities within my work area, and added wikidata tags & website information to same.

Deleted old village boundaries that have been superseded by the 2023 amalgamation.

Deleted overlapping boundaries between parishes & counties. Removed inconsistent tagging on boundary members.

Municipalities Completed:
- City of Fredericton
- City of Edmundston
- City of Miramichi
- Municipality of Grand Lake
- RM of Nashwaak
- Village of Arcadia
- Village of Grand Manan
- Town of Oromocto
- Haut-Madawaska

Fixed the total mess that was St Marys nation(Please for the love of God keep the landuse & roads off boundaries); New Import/Alignment of NB Municipal Boundaries; Wikidata tags & billingial names on municipalities & parishes; Fixed overlapping boundaries

Whoops, this was split into 2 changesets but it merged in my JOSM, hence the short changeset comment. Here are the details of what I've done:

- Cleaned up huge mess of overlapping boundaries, inconsistent admin levels, broken relations with NB Parishes.

Updated some 2023 municipal boundaries. Major work needed for language tagging consistency.

Changed all parishes from admin level 6 to 8 in preparation for importing new municipal boundaries.

Rationale for changing parish admin_level is as follows; I cannot start importing new municipalities on top of the existing admin_level=6 as they have different functions and this would not make sense. Municipalities are always admin_level=6 by default. I also Removed some old admin_level=8 villages throughout the province as these boundaries no longer exist due to the 2023 amalgamation. They will be replaced by the import of new municipal boundaries. Now that all parishes are at the appropriate admin_level, this work can continue.

Many of the boundary ways themselves still need the admin_level=6 tag removed.

Detailed breakdown of changes:
Municipal Regions Imported Thus far:
- Municipality of Grand Lake
- Haut-Madawaska
- St-Basile First Nation
- Edmunston
- Village of Arcadia
- Miramichi

Changes in each region:

Grand Lake/Arcadia:
Imported Village of Arcadia municipal boundary; fixed overlapping boundaries with Municipality of Grand Lake. Removed admin_level=6 and admin tags from the parish boundaries.

Edmunston:
Updated geometry of St Basile First Nation, created new boundary relation for same and added them as inner members to the city of Edmunston. fixed ridiculous amount of overlapping boundaries, verified and updated all data for Haut-Madawaska, simplified excessive node geometry, updated Edmunston city boundary

Miramichi:
Corrected Parishes (Nelson, Newcastle, Northesk, Chatham, Glenelg) to fall within the City of Miramichi. Per the government - "Parishes still exist in law and include any municipality, rural community, or regional municipality within their borders."
Parishes within towns which were previously admin_level=9 have been changed to 8 to align with the rest of the data.Updated boundary for the city of miramichi.
Removed duplicate admin level 8 relation for city of miamichi. Imported new borders for parish of chatham.

Grand Manan:
Removed admin_level=5 (???) ways splitting the parish and the village. reset to admin level 8 for parish & admin level 6 for village for consistency. snapped parish to village boundary (parishes are tiered higher than villages/municipalities - there is no "border" between the parish and the village, see comment above.

Everywhere else:
fixed miscellaneous overlapping boundaries, language/tagging issues, removed inconsistent boundary labels between parishes. I did not touch counties at all in this changeset, they seem OK. Please leave a comment below for questions or concerns, I have done my absolute best to avoid causing problems or data errors.

To expand on my point about the admin_level;

Previously in some rural areas the parishes functioned as Local Service Districts ie. the LSD of Canning, so they functioned similarly to a municipality. Now the new (2023) municipalities themselves have taken precedence, which is why the parishes (currently tagged as admin_level=6) should probably be reduced to admin_level=8. I will work further on this when I have the time...

I can only fit so much in a changeset comment but RVC = Rocky View County. All of the Tsuut'ina Nation "chunks" to the east of the Ring Road have been added to both the RVC relation as outer members and the City of Calgary relation as inner members. Admin_level tags have been changed accordingly.