Why is there a ford on this residential street? Is it permanently flooded?

That would be a good idea. I do not know why ridges were tagged as peaks in the first place.

If you are talking about all of the bodies of water relations I added, you should note that two of the reasons I put those in was for the benefit of the OpenSeaMap project and of users of Garmin devices. I would ask that you leave all of those relations untouched, and try to find a suitable compromise between your desire for more efficient relations and my desire to maintain this toponymic schema.

What I think we should do instead is draw the boundary of the Eeyou Marine Region as outlined in this document. https://www.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/files/017%2520-%2520Eeyour%2520Marine%2520Region%2520Land%2520Claims%2520Agreement%2520(EMRLCA).pdf

Irrelevant. First Nation lands can transcend provincial and territorial boundaries, and such boundaries would have no bearing on First Nation activities in the area. But the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 puts the Quebec-Nunavut boundary *exactly* on Quebec's mainland shoreline.

*All* islands in Hudson and James Bays belong to Nunavut, without exception. The boundary between Quebec and Nunavut must coincide with the mainland shoreline.

Ingilraniq is a strait, meant to be the entrance into Ingniqhiurvik, which is why I gave those two bodies of seawater those specific area definitions.

And the Inuvialuit Lands are meant to coincide with the coastline here. I only gave some of those ways the "natural=coastline" tag where they were more accurate than the data sourced from PGS.

In this case, it should really be just "Port Moody". http://www4.nrcan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/JAMQU

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.