This changeset marks "nature trail" closed to walkers as well as cyclists, but the edit summary only mentions cyclists. Is it really closed?

The link to the pdf doesn't work, maybe that's the cause of my confusion.

Thanks for the message, I answered on the original changeset (changeset/101006739) to keep the thread in one place.

It's a good article.

Unfortunately, yes they do not show up in the Standard tile layer. One of the mapping rules is "don't map for the renderer", or to say it another way, don't define things based on how you want them to look on the map, define them based on what they are. In this case it results in the markers not being shown.

That said, while they are apparently not classified as art by the city, there could be an argument that they are some sort of art, and art related tags could be added.

You've not really answered my question about the source of your info about the private parcel boundaries. Is it the Esri Clarity imagery? I also walk in the area frequently and do not see these details on the ground.

While some of the changes this edit introduces may be "temporary" on the ground, we're looking at 5 years for completion of the Broadway line, so it's good to map them.

When I say that there are many details not included in the imagery I mean things like this:
way/953633823 or way/953633828

There plenty of small details that do not correspond to anything in the imagery. The landuse traces you deleted followed the road edge, these seem to be trying to follow the private plots of land, but you can't get that from the imagery.

I'm not sure if you've tagged Hummingbird Place as well as it could be. I've not visited this facility, but my understanding is that this is a supported housing facility, built using the modular housing technique. I do not think it is right to call it a group home, or to say it is for homeless people. If it is housing, not a shelter, then it is for formally homeless people, and they now have housing. I'd like to remove the social facility tags, as I did with Sanford Apartments, a facility I'm more familiar with.

I just double checked, and I was correct with the southern end of the pedestrian section correct.

Are these traces based on the Esri Imagery, as the changeset tags state? It contains many details that are not visible in the imagery, so it seems that there is more going on here.

I wanted to let you know that I've retagged the obelisks you've added. The way you tagged them seems to be meant for very large monuments. I think the way I've tagged them in a way that makes more appropriate.

By the way, have you seen this article? https://scoutmagazine.ca/2017/01/04/you-should-know-the-explanation-behind-the-odd-granite-obelisks-of-mount-pleasant/

An interesting piece about these markers.

This edit adds the last of the sidewalk traces to Vancouver proper, except for a few odds and ends that I missed.

Hi Andrea, I wanted to let you know that I made some changes to how you mapped Sanford Apartments, and the Resource Centre. I work in the field, and have been inside both facilities, and have some knowledge about them. Here is a link to my changeset, let me know if you'd like more info about my edit. changeset/104907827#map=19/49.26562/-123.14131

I've deleted some of the maxspeed tags as I've not received a response.

It's not just common practice for buildings with one address, it's also neater, and more structurally logical.

Thanks for the work on sidewalks! Looks good. I was wondering if you have looked at the Esri imagery? It seems quite a bit better than the Bing Imagery you've been using. You can find it in the background settings in iD.

This changeset creates a new relation (relation/11075507/history#map=11/49.1175/-122.6994&layers=Y), ostensibly for a bike route, but in reality containing many different routes, and uses the `name` tag "Local Surrey Bike routes". Can you provide any evidence that this is the official name, and explain why so many routes are placed in the same relation?

That makes sense, thanks for the answer Ken.

Hi DunbarLoop, I see this changeset adds two info boards (node/7527083855 and node/7527083854) one with the `name` tag in English and one in Japanese. Would it make sense to use a single node with the `name:jp` tag for the Japanese name?

The source of this changeset is just what the changeset source tag states, satellite imagery and Strava heatmap. It was not based on a field survey.

The addresses in this changeset include many buildings tagged with the same addresses. I've fixed a few of these with this edit: changeset/96215843