This was me experimenting with editing capabilities of OsmAnd+. One thing I noticed is that it does not allow a source tag to be added. In this case the source was me surveying the buildings. Also it just lets me add nodes, not to add the address to the building.

Any idea why the riverbank relation of the Seymour River has the `name=Bear Island` tag on it? This seems like a mistake. If I don't hear otherwise I'll delete this tag, and may try to simplify the relation.

I probably should say that I took off the oneway=yes tag from the section of the sidewalk between the Mt Seymour Parkway & Lillooet Rd intersection and cross-walk across the Trans-Canada off ramp because there is no signage specifying it as oneway. The sidewall continues further south, and I left the oneway=yes tag on it as I am unaware of signage in this area.

"thang" is a suffices that indicates a plataux or plane in Tibetan and Ladakhi, this is an odd name for such a minor crag. Also tagging it as a peak does not seem very accurate, as it is a small hill within a valley.

This edit changes a building into a park, inaccurately. I see that this is tippytoes first edit, I will assume that it was accidental, though the edit summery makes that a tenuous assumption.

Please take a look at http://learnosm.org/en/ for a great introduction on editing OSM, and use care when making edits, mistakes like this do go live to all users without a review process.

I'm wondering about the place_of_worship that was added by this edit. It is a very odd location for some sort of place_of_worship, and I suspect that it is an error.

There is certainly not a place_of_worship visible from outside the building. Nor is it particularly useful to have a node tagged as a place_of_worship w/o specifying the religion.

If there is not more info available I'd like to remove this node.

oops, the source wasn't bing, it was a survey.

I'm not sure if this is the best way to map these structures, but I can't come up with a better one.

I was messing around with the Maps.me app to see how easy it is to add addresses with it. It's ok, still a few more taps then I'd like, and would be nice if it gave a source tag to the changeset, "survey" in this case.

It would be a good idea to read osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines. The short story is that imports should only be done with great care. I'm still not convinced that this import is beneficial, and will ask the DWG to take a look.

That's rad. It sure beats my method of checking OsmAnd when I ride past a new station. I wish I had your python skills.

If you are like me, and feel a kind of thrill when you download the data for an area through JOSM, and it returns "No data found in this area" then try to do some mapping in this area.

Its pretty fun, with lots of rivers, streams, lakes, and road completely unmapped. :-)

Hi mappered1, this edit is an error. There may have been a gas station at the 7-11 at one point (a few years back?), but there is not one there at present, Well, wasn't a couple hours ago, when I double checked.

Thanks for adding this Francois. I've seen a couple new stations, but both times I checked and you've already added them.

That is normal behaviour on the part of the software. Somehow I missed that there was that relation in Laos that had also been modified. I ran the edit through a history viewer (http://osmhistory.appspot.com/ I think) and didn't notice the change in Laos, but all I needed to do was look just under this text box... oops.

That's really interesting. So you'd uploaded all the changes in Laos, but the area was still included in the bounding box! That's kind of shitty. I guess I'm not the first one to find the history function on OSM.org to be not very useful, but this was one weakness that I'd not been aware of.

Hi katpatuka,

Do you have any idea why an edit like this, to a region in Turkey, shows such a huge bounding box? It seems really common, but I don't understand the reason.

In addition to my concern about potential lack of discussion prior to an import, I have concerns about the quality and accuracy of this data. Of the 1270 nodes originally added with this edit 183 of them have identical coordinates with one or more other nodes. They were originally added as polling stations, and later edited to schools "so they can show in map", this seems like a pretty clear case of tagging for the renderer. While many polling stations may be located in schools, are they *always* located in schools? It seems unlikely to me. Additionally many of these "schools" are not visible in the Bing imagery, with empty fields or woods clearly visible. Most are located in areas with many buildings, and it's not possible to determine if there is a school present or not.

I hope thevikas will be able to clear up my concerns.

Hi Purple Platapus, thanks for your edits, good to see new people mapping on OSM. You seem to have local knolage of these schools, and that's always a great addition to the map.

I did notice a few things that seem to be errors in Kerrisdale Park and Point Grey School. I've made an edit, cleaning up some errors, other things I am not sure about. I've remapped the soccer field w/in the track, as it should just be the field itself, not out of bound areas. I cleaned up the routing of the service road.

You made a pretty significant modification to the park boundry, and it now overlaps with the school grounds. This is a mistake, as areas are either under the authority of the Parks Board or the School Board, but I do not know if you've made the park more accurate, and the school grounds need fixing, or the park should just be put back how it was.

One thing to avoid is to "map for the renderer" (osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer). That is to say to enter incorrect data to make the map look like we think it should. I noticed an oddly shaped sports field to the West of Point Grey school. I suspect that this is just a grassy area, that you wanted to show up green on the map. This would be a mistake, however conveniently we have the "landuse=grass" tag that will show up green on the map. Perhaps this area should be changed?

I'm wondering if your change to the park boundary is a similar thing, because the park shows up green on the map.

One more thing to point out before I shut up: iD (the editor you are using) has the ability to make map objects have 90 degree angles. This makes things like sports fields look *way* better. Click on an object, then in the pop up menu click on the button with the square icon.

Sorry for the wall of text, I hope some of that info is helpful. Thanks again for your edits, and happy mapping!

This edit introduces some nodes with bad tagging. The ones that stand out for me are the ones with name and ele tags, and no more. The ele value is non-numerical and identical with the name. If no info is added as to what these names represent (locality, piste, etc) then I'm going to remove them.