I'm deleting this ice cream parlour in the middle of the forest.

Looks mistaken to me too, I've reverted it, as the viewpoints don't make sense. And some maps.me users make map edits w/o realizing they are editing the public map.

I failed to update the source tag, and this is not based on Esri imagery, but based on my survey of the addresses.

At least one bad address in this changeset, as with others uploaded by this user.

Have you been out this way lately. I'd be surprised if the oneway restrictions are still in place on these trails.

I've cycled on the 99 past Squamish, and never seen any signage prohibiting cycling. Can you please provide evidence that cycling is prohibited on the sections you changed the tags from `bicycle=yes` to `bicycle=no`?

I was looking over the OSM wiki on Demolished Railways, and see that this may be correct usage of the `razed` tag, although there seems to be some dispute about the use of such a tag, and assuming that there was indeed a tram here at one point.

In any case, I'm ok leaving the tag, if there are no objections from other editors.

I mistakenly failed up update the source tag on this changeset. It should be "Survey".

No worries. Thanks for contributing to OSM!

Just a quick heads up: A single address should not be duplicated on multiple nodes our building outlines. One address should only appear one time. Josm gives errors if you try to have the same address on multiple objects, and I'm surprised that iD doesn't.

This changeset added a couple of addresses to multiple objects (building outline, and entrances). I've fixed it, but wanted to explain what the issue was.

As this tram does not exist, I would like to remove the tag from this roadway. Have you gotten the results from this test yet?

I forgot to change the changeset's source tag to "Survey".

I see that DENelson83 has made some more significant restructuring of the named parts of Burrard Inlet with the changeset: relation/13828327

This uses parent relations to create a complex structure, with no advantage. The fundamental issue with these changes is that there is no "one point, one name" rule. As has been pointed out in the help article and the above comment.

As per the discussion on:

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/83528/can-different-named-areas-of-sea-overlap

there is no such rule as the one point, one name rule. I think it would be wise to stop making these major edits changing the boundaries of bays and other bodies of water, to fit your personal rules.

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.