This edit changes the Trans-Canada Trail back to being classified exclusively as a foot route. I see that this user has made *extensive* changes to the Trans-Canada Trail in the 6 weeks they have been signed up with OSM. They have twice changed it from a bicycle route, to a hiking route, despite this relation existing as a bike route for almost 10 years. It is important to realize that while the Trans-Canada Trail may not be a bicycle route in it's entirety, the sections that had been in this relation were specifically for bicycles. Many of those sections have been removed, and replaced by foot sections, but other parts are cycleways and remain in this relation.

I would ask the user "Bike Across Canada Route Network" to refrain from making any more edits to the Trans-Canada Trail (aka The Great Trail) until other editors can figure out what has been changed, and if it was appropriate and accurately reflects the situation on the ground. I'm concerned that some of the edits might be construed as vandalism, especially as you seem to be promoting alternative trans-Canada routes.

It totally makes sense, I also think the Trans-Canada trail has many issues too. Even the parts of it that are a bike route are often poor. I think that developing new routes publicly, with many adjustments is a good thing.

All that said, I'm not sure if it is in keeping with the OSM policies or within OSM's scope. My understanding was that the purposed tag was for routes that have been officially purposed, not for active crowdsourced projects in development.

So they are crowd sourced routes of convention, not officially defined ones? Would it be fair to call them recommended routes?

I'm unclear what this "route 1" is. At present, are you actively developing it with a group on facebook?

Small world!

I"ll bet the right thing to do would be tag sections as pedestrian and parts as service. Although I've always been bothered by how the `highway=pedestrian` is used for such a wide variety of very different ways from something like The Mall in Shimla, to the galees in varanasi.

Is "Suffering Moses" a houseboat? I stayed in a houseboat right by Zero Bridge. I think it's a great part of town to stay in. Convenient location, and it's great being able to walk on and off a houseboat w/o needing a Shikar.

I'd love to go back, but don't feel good about the political situation in the near future. It wasn't great in 2016 either, and most of my mapping in the valley has been done from the imagery, with very little done from the ground, with the exception of a bit around Zero Bridge, Boulevard Road, and the way to Sonamarg, because I didn't spend much time in the Valley.

Hi Arun, wanted to let you know that I have changed the tagging of a way you tagged as `highway=pedestrian`, back to `=service`. Based on your edit summary, I think you based the tag on the satellite imagery. I visited Srinagar in 2016, and came this way. At the time, some of the road was too narrow for cars, other parts are accessible to cars, and all of it is open for bicycles and motorcycles. I feel that service is a better classification.

I wanted to let you know, in case you had more up to date information than me. Also, I should point out that I did not go West of Zero Bridge.

My changeset: changeset/88743579

Let me know if you feel I've made a mistake, and we can fix it.

Thanks!

link: changeset/87866102

Thanks for the comment. I do think it is a bit of a grey area, because I agree with your first interpretation that `highway=track` is appropriate even if it isn't publicly accessible. The thing is that this is only very rarely accessed by Metro Vancouver Parks trucks. I think I have seen one there too, but it's very unusual. And it is very common to use this as a trail. That is why I feel that it is more appropriate to tag this as a trail. Not because it's *wrong* to tag it as a track, just that it's far more accurate to tag it as a trail, and more helpful to the vast majority of users.

I'm at my computer now, so I'll change it back to trail.

Hi Mark, I see you have updated the tagging of Twin Bridges Trail. I totally agree, that it is wide and gravel. It seems to me that it is not used as a road, and based on its use we can more accurately tag it as a trail. Are you basing its classification based solely on it's width?

This edit was just in the immediate vicinity of Fraser River Park, but did change some of the river bank traces.

Thanks for such a useful edit summery. I only noticed the name change now, and was glad to have it explained.

Here's a proper link to the changeset that introduced the errors: changeset/86894976

Hello and welcome to OSM VancouverHistoricalPhotos! Thanks for contributing. I'm just a normal volunteer here, just like you, but I've been doing it for a while now, and wanted to let you know that this edit has introduced some errors in the a section of the cycleway. (here: way/336803184) You removed the tags that marked it as a cycleway, so it just looked like an old railway track, even though there it was converted to a bicycle path a few years back.

I hope you continue to edit, but please do be careful about introducing errors.

I have fixed it with my recent edit: changeset/87048728

Hi thanks for paying attention, and seeing my note. I added the note from my phone, while cycling past, and I got the location a bit off. I then added the bench in the proper location, and forgot about the note... I've deleted the bench you added, because I put the note on the wrong side of the trail.

Sorry for the confusion.

At least two of the buildings in this edit mistakenly have a single address added, when two exist in reality. (way/331442853/history and way/331442829/history)

It's cool you added the Russian name to the church, but I've moved it to the `name:ru` tag. If you have Russian language skills it'd be great to get some more multilingual `name:ru` tags around the Vancouver, but I don't think it should go into the default `name` tag, even for Russian things like this church. спасибо!

Very amusing, but I think it should be removed. Do I really need to say why?

Thanks Arun, that's kind of you to say. Means lots coming from a pro.

Maybe I should add that I also walked by this block today, and checked the progress of the building on Main Street. While it is not ready for people to move in yet, the construction of the structure is completed. As it is not visible in the imagery yet, the trace is very approximate.

This edit removes all tags, except the name tag, from Griffen Switchbacks. Was this done because the path is no longer publicly accessible? If so wouldn't adding `access=no` be more appropriate?