I'm going through fixing some address errors in this changeset too. The usual stuff: the same address added to multiple buildings, or buildings with multiple addresses only being mapped with one. Only buildings with one address seem to usually be correct.

I'm going through fixing some wrong addresses for this changeset too.

oops, I forgot to link to the example relation: relation/3989104/

This import seems to include coastal regions of sea tagged as both `natural=water` and intermittent=yes`, I've just found this as relations, but there may be some mapped as a single circular way. (example relation:

Some of them seem to be areas of shallow water, probably to the low tide line. Others include deeper water. To my knowledge OSM does not map low tide lines, nor does it make sense to me to map some areas of sea as `natural=water`, as opposed to `natural=bay`, or some other named feature.

I'm tempted to just delete the relations as I come across them. Do you have any input?

Here's a link to my edit making the changes:

changeset/153187014

Here's a link to the changeset in question: changeset/123327250

Thank you for reminding me about this voteforpedro, I'd meant to give alex circuit a chance to explain themselves, and then remove the `bicycle=no` if they failed to provide a reasonable rational for their change. Or at least the opportunity to write a full sentence. But I forgot to deal with it.

They have not made any attempt to explain themselves, and I am opposed to their change that banned bicycles from this route. I've gone ahead and changed the `bicycle=no` to `bicycle=yes`. I think I got them all.

Thanks for your answer Joel. I think it's good not to over complicate things. I think it's good to represent areas with simple outlines as a single trace. If we used multiple ways in relations to represent everything that can be represented as a single way it would become much harder to edit the map, because it'd be harder to see how it's structured.

Additionally, by changing it to a relation, it made the edit history harder to find, it only part of one of the ways making up the relation.

It's not a big deal, but I personally consider unnecessary relations to be not as good an approach. In all honesty I don't know what the consensus is.

Thanks for recombining the ways, deleting the relation, and making sure the history remained intact. It looks good.

What's the advantage of making the Burnaby Mountain Conservation Area a relation with three members? It had been mapped as a single way marking the outer boundary for 7 years.

Thanks SomeoneElse!

Sorry not to see your message until now, Joel.

I also understand that the mean highest high tide line is the best one to use for the coastline.

That said, I do think there is generally some beach between this line and where the terrestrial plants start, and if there are too many overlapping features they obscure each other in many renderings. I don't think we can say with total accuracy from the imagery where the mean spring high-water line is, so spreading the coastline and the highest point of beach may or may not be technically accurate, but allows users to see the info better. Many renderings make the fact that there is a beach impossible to see, if it is entirely below the coast line.

I think it is more useful to take my approach, to keep things clear, and I hope my approach is ok.

I should also point out that it was changeset/148518163 that I deleted the railway line with.

Hi, and thank you for your work on the map.

I've noticed what looks like a mistake to me, a short section of railway that is disconnected from any other railway line by many km of mountainous terrain.

I think it's actually a section of canal, mostly obscured by the trees. These narrow canals are used in this part of India commonly for irrigation and small hydroelectric.

But I don't think we can be sure from the satellite imagery alone. I've just deleted it, but if you have been to the location, and know more than me I'm happy to add it back. I would recommend that you add "Survey" or "Local knowledge" to your changeset summary if that's the case.

Thanks for your work on the map, and I hope you keep it up!

Wow! That's a pretty funny mistake!

Thanks for noticing my note, and updating to a construction site.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Protected bike lane is part of the roadway", just like the sidewalk, it is part of the public thoroughfare, but it has a barrier between it, and the lanes for general traffic.

Yes, it is a short section of separated cycleway, but I believe it meets the criteria to be mapped as its own way.

Was this an automated edit?

This changeset also contains at least two address errors, which I've fixed.

Thanks for your edit! Your edit from 6 years ago made it much easier for me to find this hostel!

The map looks nice with those trees!