I've posted my question to https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/83528/

Feel free to comment there, if you would like.

Sorry, but it really does not make sense to me, to use the land parcels for the landuse traces, w/o reliable data on what the land parcels actually are. Satellite imagery is just insufficient to determine land parcels.

Based on this article: https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/city-of-burnaby-mountain-sfu-gondola-route-selection-official

The route as mapped is accurate, and now approved.

Oh, it's just a personal rule you use for yourself, not a general OSM one? I think it should have more general acceptance to change the names of bodies of water like you have with this changeset.

I'm not familiar with the "one point, one name rule for bodies of seawater". Where can I read more about it?

This one too: changeset/116266434

And some more made before and after that changeset.

Here's the changeset that fixes it: changeset/116163215

Thanks for noticing and telling me Joel. I'm not sure how I managed to do that! I reverted this changeset, and manually redid the (very minor) changes this edit originally intended. I think this is sorted the problem, but let me know if I've missed anything.

Good job on the outline, seeing as there's no imagery yet! I walked by the other day, and was surprised to see it so well done so soon after construction finished.

Oops, the source tag should read `Survey`.

Thanks for making the tagging of this construction area more detailed. I am wondering if the `level`, `layer`, and `underground` tags. As the construction continues right to the surface, I feel that it would be more accurate with these tags removed from the station construction sites.

What do you think 3ngineer?

Uhh... Was it the art gallery?

This changeset contains at least some errors, placing a single address to a building with multiple address, or repeating the same address for multiple buildings. I've fixed some of it, but there's more to do.

Thanks for asking.

I'm afraid I'm not sure of that part of the subway. I was basing this edit on the images I saw of the construction plans right around Emily Carr. If I made any changes in the Broadway area, it was based on speculation of what a reasonable turning radius would be.

Thanks. Yes, that is the part I was referring to. Thanks for the confirming it is tagged properly.

Sounds good to me. I'm not sure what the normal way to tag a wading pool like this is.

oops, I forgot to update the source tag for this changeset, it should read "Esri World Imagery".

This marks part of the Trans Canada Trail as `access=no`, and maybe other trails in the area. Is the trail really closed to the public? Still?

You could be right `access=no` with `foot=designated` could mean that it is only open to walkers, but it is an unusual way of doing it. Tagging it how you did basicly means "no one is allowed here, except walkers". But footpaths are closed to motor vehicles by default, and in this context we are only really worried about foot and bicycle. Tagging it as `access=no` could lead to confusion, as it did with me, and as has happened with the default rendering. In the default rendering it just shows the trail as closed (that's why it's that light grey colour), and it ignores the foot=designated. It is unwise to tag for the renderer, but I'm just using this as an example of the confusion that can arise from an automated system from the way it's been tagged, as well as the way I misunderstood it.

I've removed the unnecessary access tags, and left the `bicycle=no` tag. This is much easier for humans and automated systems to parse.

Hey, thanks for asking the individual campsites. That's really helpful!