also modified the underground pedestrian tunnel in Medicine Hat (oops, meant for this to be a different changeset. )

the tag has been changed as per changeset/186892356.

I will revise that right now.

yes, shop=safety_equipment seems to be a more appropriate use case. They sell a variety of industrial safety equipment, fire extinguishers, etc.

congrats on getting to "open the bridge" on OSM. Exciting day!

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