Wow, fast work!

I've finished cleaning up the coastline, and finished fixing the relations that use the coastline.

One of the advantages of not using the low-tide line for the coastline, was that it made many small islands, like Box Island, part of Vancouver Island. My approach avoids this issue, and overall

While I agree that it can be unclear how far up the high tide line is, this changeset put the coastline on part of the beach that is clearly covered by the tide routinely. Based on your comments it seems like the old coastline was at the upper boundary of the beach. I think this is closer to the correct location than the lower boundary of the beach is, indeed the tide was higher than much of the mapped coastline in the current imagery. I've edited it to place the coastline on neither the lower boundary of the beach or the upper one, but to have it's own way between the two. I think this most closely represents reality, even if the exact geometry isn't verifiable.

There's still lots of work to do though, because I've only done some of the beaches, and this changeset left some relations for bays, and of Vancouver Island itself, on the upper boundary of the beach, rather than on the coastline, which really doesn't make sense.

I'll continue to work on the area, to make things more consistent, but it does seem like these edits were an example of mapping for the renderer.

What's up with the small grassy area you've mapped as a park? (Here: way/526675645/ )

Did you hear something about the ownership being transferred to the Vancouver Park Board, or are you just basing it on the satellite imagery? If it's the latter, I think it would be better to just map it as grass.

Could I get a more information about this? It looks like it is fictional, and made up with humorous intent.

Good job getting this edit done so close to the opening time!

Yes, my mistake, I've fixed it.

I added it from my phone, and on the small screen didn't notice the cafe had already been created. I also repositioned the old node, to place it within the building.

Thanks for fixing this. I am aware that Tso means lake, but "Tso Kar" was the only name I'd heard used for this settlement. May I ask where you got the name "Thukje" from?

That does not explain why you deleted the way that mapped what was beach. Did you follow the link to the way I linked to in my comment?

I'd also be interested in why [this way](way/1314750813/history) was deleted. I was the one who mapped that beach, and do not understand why it was deleted.

I've noticed that people often don't do imports any closer to towns than this. Is it because it is too tough to get the import to work with the existing data when the existing data is pretty high density?

Thanks for adding these addresses!

LOL, exactly!

I'd missed a couple places these tags had been added, and only cleaned them up today. Please be cautious about adding tags like this, and don't base edits on assumptions, as it is a pain to clean up messes like this.

I've been working on it, deleting some areas, and retagging some as `natural=wetland`, `wetland=tidalflat` when the satellite imagery makes that look likely.

Thanks for updating this. It was closed for some time during construction of the new road to the north, but I passed this way again a few days ago, and it is open again.

Thanks for updating this, I'd not heard that news.

OK, sounds like it doesn't mean anything here on OSM, so I'll see what I can do in terms of deleting the relations and ways.

I'm not very experienced with imports, but the one I did I documented what tags I used in the imported dataset and how I translated them into OSM tags on my import userpage (@keithonearth_imports). While the one import I did is far less complex than yours, and I could have done a better job of phrasing it, I think it's a good thing to do. I'm not sure about the rules about imports, but I recommend the approach.

I was going to say it's only been a couple of years since the only import I've done, and I've already forgotten the details. But it turns out that it's been 7 years. I couldn't remember how I translated the CoV data tags a few months later, or which ones I used and which ones I discarded, but I don't have to because I wrote it down.

Hi James, I've seen a number of sections of sea on the coast of Haida Gwaii, tagged as `natural=water` and `intermittent=yes`, below the `natural=coastline`, like this one: way/299759857/

This is a strange tagging convention, and I'm not sure how to interpret it. Areas of sea that are exposed at low tide? Reefs? Something else? Do you know what the features were intended to represent in the Canvec data? How could we better tag them? As the features are currently tagged they do not mean anything, and are messy.

This changeset added the same address to multiple building traces. This should not be done. If there are really more than one building with the same address the address should be added once, either on a central node, or on a landuse area. In this case the one building was incorrectly mapped as many, and I've fixed that, and deleted the unnecessary address tags.