Would you be willing to add the tag "natural"="bay" to the Gulf of Mexico way, #808726001?

I have just read your urgent message, and I will no longer be editing seawater data until further notice. I will instead proceed with other edits, such as those around my hometown.

http://www4.nrcan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/LACKU

CanVec and CGNDB were in fact my overarching sources on this project. "Beaufort Sea" does appear in CGNDB, and I have not looked in the CanVec data to see that is indeed there. If necessary, I can change the "source" field in the Beaufort Sea relation to say CGNDB, and I can do this for many other such relations.

It was redundant under this guideline. <osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element>

These sea names do appear in the CanVec database and in the CGNDB. As well, I used the IHO definition for the Beaufort Sea given in Wikipedia.

I discussed this project on the talk-ca mailing list, and there was no consensus either for me mounting this project, or against. I have had some opposition to doing this project, but have also had some support.

PierZen, before you comment on this changeset, you must know that with this changeset and the one of mine just after that restoring the Île aux Coudres section to the Saint Lawrence River Middle Estuary, you must be made aware that this is as far as I am willing to go. As far as I am concerned, this relation is now in its final state.

Then let the record show that you believe this part of the St. Lawrence River to be freshwater and not seawater, and I will just have to leave it at that.

Let it be noted that I personally object to giving more than one name to a single point on the sea. I may not be able to get anyone to agree with this, but it is my own personal objection.

And I have stated numerous times that I am willing to maintain this dataset of area definitions, so as to minimize trouble incurred by other editors. They can edit the coastline data as they see fit without having to worry about this dataset.

My intended goal was to give every single body of seawater in Canada an area definition, and now you are asking me to renege on that goal. I am sorry, but I cannot.

I will have to remove "Chenal du Nord" and "Chenal du Sud" in order to re-extend the Middle St. Lawrence Estuary area.

You are putting me in an uncomfortable situation. You are now the second person to have challenged my personal "one point, one name" guideline.

Sorry, but that would cut the area with that name into two parts. The Chenal du Nord and Chenal du Sud are in the way. I use a guideline called "one point, one name" when naming bodies of seawater, and I have an additional guideline that says that a body of seawater with a single name cannot be cut into two disjoint areas.

That is the name of the wiki page, but the name of the city itself is just "St. John's". We do not put anything but the name of the city in the "name" field.

Your edit to the city name here is redundant. The exact city name is "St. John's". The fact that it is in Newfoundland and Labrador is indicated by the fact that it falls within relation #391196. And this node is supposed to be placed at the city hall, not at some random point within the city.

This seems to be a rather mal-formed changeset. One of the "Winter Harbour" relations in this changeset, #13714934, has itself as a member twice, and its two child relations take in many of Canada's Queen Elizabeth Islands.

According to the Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba Boundary Extension Acts of 1912, the jurisdictions of these three provinces terminate exactly at their Arctic shorelines. All islands within Hudson Bay, James Bay, Hudson Strait and Ungava Bay belong exclusively to what is now Nunavut. I am now correcting these boundaries to coincide exactly with these shorelines.

It is a rule I use when naming bodies of seawater. Any point on the sea is allowed to have a maximum of one name associated with it.

Yeah, that should actually be "natural"="isthmus".

natural=isthmus

What I did was simply reorder the relation members in order, forming closed loops. There must be something else wrong with Lakes Huron and Ontario. Maybe if we compare them to the other Great Lakes, we will find the problem.