A brook, is a small stream.

I was [likely¹] trying to distinguish the difference between the continuous flowing waterway (down-stream) and the intermittent nature of the smaller waterway above the dammed pond, into which this "brook" feeds.

I don't know if OSM has changed its standards since, but a decade ago, contributors could add user-defined tags to object/way keys so long as they conformed to the general standard of the day: "waterway=brook" though not formally defined in the OSM Wiki, is (was?) an acceptable tag to the key "waterway" as it conveyed a descriptive state of the feature.

At this point, for all I know (or can remember), "brook" might have been an actually defined tag for the key "waterway" but was subsequently discarded, as causing confusing—I simply don't know or remember.

I stopped editing OSM a long time ago (more than 6–7 years ago) because of obsessive compulsive little map Nazi's reverting my edits because they thought my edits didn't strictly adhere to THEIR interpretation of the OSM Wiki standards, which clearly allows for some flexibility, not an enforced absolutist rigidity.
—
¹ Anthropocentric deity myths only know what I was thinking a decade ago—why you think I should know in 2024, what I was doing in an edit in 2014/15 is beyond me.

Considering the date of my edit, does it really matter?
I can only surmise that I used a “user_defined” surface tag because it was described as such in the referenced NAVCan airport chart.
Furthermore, this would limit search results (exclude/include) for the specific tag, rather than resulting in a much larger selection of objects if only “asphalt” was used (though perhaps using “asphalt” alone might include the airport ramps/taxiways/runways without using an exclusion to “asphalt_” in the search parameters).
Having not been active on OSM for many years, you're free to use your discretion.
Cheers.

Done

If you're referring to the 'Y' effect at the two connecting ways between Caroline Rd & the Caroline Rd cul-de-sac, my bad, I missed not including the complete cul-de-sac circle.

This has been corrected.

note*

The bed tags were just references used to reference my coord data in Excel (they were suppose to be removed before I uploaded the gardens).
I did correct this afterwards, but not I missed one garden which has now itself been corrected.
Cheers.

I used two buildings to delineate between the change in building levels between the two. Despite both being 4 stories, the Esquimalt road facing building is one level lower than the building portion running N (parallel to the E property line).
Since there's no means to denote the change in building height of two portions of the same building, I thought the use of two separate but adjacent building areas would be the easiest way to show it.
I tried using a multi-poly, but I got errors in defining both as "outer" with their area separations sharing a common series of coords (the adjacent way), so falling back on two separate building seems to be the only reasonable solution I could come up with.
If you have a suggestion (that doesn't involve reverting to a single building outline without a means to denote the change in floor levels between the two) I'd be happy to hear & consider it.
I tried using the "building:part" key, but it also caused error issues which is why the balconies are also tagged only as 'building' with a comment to explain what they actually are.
Cheers.

These ARE administrative boundaries used by the Regional Districts to manage freshwater resources. Stop being a dick.

Another case of vandalism by the arrogant alester. Gotta love it.

Once again... some unknown JA jumps in to poor alester's def. Pathetic.

1. Understood – GE ist verboten! Period. (Won't make that mistake again.)
2. Mind you, it seems even some of the "rule keepers" don't actually know the f'n "rules" themselves... (imagine that).
3. If you have any influence with the powers that be at OSM, then may I suggest you do what you can to persuade them to write some added routine within this changeset review scheme which will notify users in JOSM that someone has an issue with their edits rather than relying entirely on people having to check their e-mail every 10 minutes.

I'm not asking for a private comms channel, I am asking for an ALTERNATE MEANS OF CONTACT when there is an issue that needs my (or anyone else's) attention.

This isn't rocket science. A SIMPLE user notification routine integrated within this changeset review system is all that's needed... one that flag's users in JOSM (or any other OSM approved editor) that some OC is having a fit over some edit that was made, just as users are alerted in JOSM to account PMs.

I'll say this again: I DO NOT CHECK MY E-MAIL ON A REGULAR BASIS and I'm sure as hell not about to start doing so.

What part of that statement DO YOU NOT understand?!?

1. I DID NOT use GE to "EDIT" anything. I used it as a visual source & collected some (untrused) coordinate/measurements info to import into AutoCAD Civil 3D whereupon I used that data to "best approximate" the parking layout. Normally I would have used VicMap, but the aerial/satellite imagery is two years dated (2017) for this site and the parking lot had not been laid out at that time.

What was imported into OSM was Civil 3D coord data, NOT GE data. I used GE as a rough source, nothing more. There is absolutely NO direct data transferred from GE to OSM in this regard. I merely gave GE credit as a source to be thorough in my source list (something I’m far more forthcoming with than you appear to be, noting the distinct absence of any source citations to a shit-load of data you’ve placed on the map).

So if I've errored in citing GE (which I will now avoid in future), be assured NO GE DATA WAS IMPORTED DIRECTLY INTO OSM, ergo no ODbL license infringement was made.

2. I've asked you before, if you need to get my attention on an edit I’ve made that you're concerned about, PM me through the OSM user account messaging system. PLEASE DO NOT USE THESE MEANS.

I don't believe for one GDF minute you're not logged into OSM when you’re checking edits and therefore aren't able to go to the user page of the offending user, and PM them there as well, when you see something that offends you. Doing so alerts me when I run JOSM that someone wants my attention sooner than I may otherwise discover (like a month later) when I do check my e-mail.

I told you before, I DO NOT check my e-mail regularly, sometimes a month will go by before I do, which means I don’t see your comments/concerns until weeks after you’ve issued them, which makes you think I’m ignoring you, which I AM NOT deliberately trying to do. But you are forcing the issue by ignoring my request to be contacted via OSM’s other means so that I may address your "issues" more promptly and to your satisfaction.(openstreetmap.org/user/MelioraCogito)

...and I'm NOT interested in reading someone else's reply, who jump into this exchange on your defence.

It's simply a place holder in the event that surface of the playground area is actually wood chips rather than sand.
I should have added a "fixme" tag asking for clarification (I was going to do that myself).
As for whether such a tag is listed or not, so long as the tag follows OSM guidelines it is permitted.

Very likely...

"you should be receiving notice of all of these to the e-mail address you used to register for osm."

This presumes that people should check their e-mail daily. I barely check my e-mail once a month. I do know however that if a PM is left for me on my account, it IS flagged in JOSM AND when I'm viewing the map in my browser.

This type of notification only by e-mail needs to be rectified. I have no quarrel with responding to notifications or concerns expressed when I become aware of them, but it SHOULD NOT be incumbent purely on the reliance of having to collect and read e-mails on a daily basis – and it would seem alester is too full of himself to wait (or attempt other more direct means of contact). (As I said, I check my e-mail only rarely. I do not live beholden to it, nor should I be expected to do so.)
If he wishes to contact me over some perceived violation I've committed to his precious AOI of the map, then he can PM me from his account, which I will assuredly receive notification of and can reply in more prompt manner.
———
Now, to the points alester made in his first two attempts to contact me. Both were vague in his assertions AND (I might add) not invitations to correct the problems noted in the changeset itself, since he appears to be far too impatient and made the corrections himself.

What then is the point? How is THAT conducive to creating a productive and cooperative environment for new contributors? Ans.: It isn't.

It is selfish and condescendingly protective of his own work – work I note, much of which has no credit/citations as to his sources.

I recognize he's a long-time contributor and he may very well have seasoned and learned insights to offer newer contributors, but his actions are NOT conducive to creating a productive and respectful relationship – especially when he reverts work less than 12 hrs old and HAS NOT allowed the contributor to respond to his concerns or observations in a timely manner, least of all attempted via PM'g to contact the contributor, rather than merely relying on this clearly inadequate means.

"I've advised you on several recent changesets of many issues, but you seem to keep doing the same thing and ignoring all advice."

With all due respect: bullshit.
I have not seen any communications from you either in JOSM (which would have alerted me) or my OSM account (there is NOTHING in my Inbox).
So I don't know who the heck you're talking to – had I even been aware of them I'd have acknowledged any issues I may have created and moved to correct them.
I'm a little more than pissed off at the moment.

"You clean up any errors created by your edits"

[face-palm] I was in the process of of doing JUST THAT when you abruptly reverted my changes that weren't even 24 hours old! How the f'k can I correct my errors if you've revered my work between my downloading a new "current" dataset, making the corrections and suddenly finding out I can't upload the corrections because the dataset I'm working on has been reverted already?!?

WRT the "(duplicate) Galloping Goose park relation," that wasn't a duplicate, it was an addition that had you left well enough alone I would have merged it with the existing relation to the west or you could have very easily done it yourself simply by selecting the relation elements, adding them to the existing GG relation to the west, and deleting the "duplicate" relation. But oh no... you had to revert didn't you?

Again, I'm more annoyed with the fact that you HAVE NOT contacted me despite claiming otherwise — I reiterate, I have not been alerted (aware) to your attempt to contact me, either by JOSM or my OSM account and usually when someone does, JOSM will alert me as will may account.

I suggest you make a better effort next time.

Salutations from the 'wet coast' “Lost Traveller” ;)

Thanks for the heads up on CanVec data. Yes I do realize it's dated, but in its defence it is data that does fill in, to a reasonable degree, otherwise blank areas of Canada in general and in particular my region of interest, BC – I abhor a vacuum and a map that looks blank of relevant information.

My primary intent by importing it is simply to add the textural foundation elements, notably woodlands and water features, to those areas of BC currently devoid of such information. I’m also using data from the BC Freshwater Atlas which I give precedence over CanVec water feature data. As a rule of thumb, I generally omit adding CanVec roadways or other “man_made” features unless they were previously omitted, because I do appreciate the work others have put into the project.

As for tagging streams v. rivers, I tend to leave the watercourse tags as they are unless obviously in error. Again, my aim isn’t so much as to ensure absolute accuracy – which I assure you I have a healthy OCD for – as it is to fill in the blank areas of the map of this vast country of ours, specifically BC. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I add more data.

Cheers from the ‘wet coast.’

P.S. – changes made.

Cheers.

I'll remove these tags as they didn't have the effect I was looking for – I was trying to set a map rendering level (1 being the lowest level) for each object as some of the greyed crossovers lines are sitting on top of the darker mainline objects (I tend to get a bit OCD over this kind of issue).

Cheers.

I don't recall adding any speed tags to any of the edits (considering these were made over two years ago).
Feel free to correct them.

Hi Joachim,

Lets step back a moment.

Yes, I am familiar with this terminal and the route—I live on southern Vancouver Island and take this route regularly.

Re: way/324545419/history
The portion of this [service] way up to the terminal (toll) booth could be considered part of the ‘trunk’ route or more precisely a “trunk_link” route from the traffic light intersection just outside the terminal area. Beyond that (inside the terminal area) there is nothing but [service] drive isles to temporary parking for waiting traffic to board the ferries.
In fact, I would classify all of Hwy 17 between the terminal and the interchange at South Fraser Perimeter Road as being a “primary_highway”, not a “trunk_highway”. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Re: way/51790188
This way is 'unclassified' because it is a primary public access road to and from the walk-on/walk-off passenger terminal—for both private motor vehicles and public transit.
Part of the reasoning for this [my] classification is the visual representation it provides on the map for the route. There are lots of other service roads and drive isles surrounding this route and it would seem reasonable that we should illustrate its primary function without minimizing its use (i.e. losing its importance in a sea of service roads).
We cannot classify it as ‘residential’ because it is not.
We cannot classify it as ‘tertiary’ because it is not.
So I was left with ‘unclassified.’ As such, it holds a higher priority of use than a ‘service’ road would. The same goes for the return bend which initiated this exchange.

Finally, I notice you’re using Bing imagery when making your changes.
Are you aware of the British Columbia Mosaic imagery (available in the background settings for the iD browser editor or stand alone JOSM editor) for Greater Vancouver (what we call the GVRD – Greater Vancouver Regional District)?
While it may not be the most up-to-date as the Bing imagery, its resolution is far better and it is the primary imagery used by most contributors doing work in the GVRD—though you may find you have to switch back-and-forth between the two imagery sets to get an updated view of some [minor] areas, but I do recommend using the BCM as your primary coordinate reference frame and image set.

Cheers, Brett