Looks to me like you're deleting and replacing some of these instead of just adding. If you're going to import CANVEC crap, you shouldn't be deleting features that are already there, when you're only replacing the feature with a new version.

Yeah - what phideaux said.
I was going to give another example of what you could do - but now notice that you're using Potlatch... which I know absolutely nothing about.
Well if you *were* using iD, you can create your natural area and snap to whatever boundaries you desire, and then when done, while the new area is selected and fully visible (zoom out if necessary), hit "d" to disconnect all nodes.
In essence, it's far less future work for mappers should landuse or boundaries change - then only the one element needs to be updated. Ultimately not a *huge* deal - mostly just a helpful fyi from a fellow pnw-er.

FYI - Gluing "natural=" areas to civic boundaries really shouldn't be done.
Gluing land areas to water bodies in generally frowned on, too. Just so you know.

I understand what you're saying, and I totally support what you're trying to do - I just need to reiterate that the administrative boundary of Inuvik does not correspond to the IANA of the same name.
FYI, I had to redo the admin boundary, as it was fouled up AND incorrect to boot.
Accordingly, I did not replace the Inuvik IANA boundary you created.
I did find that iana.org has a tarballed data file, but it was filled with old references and invalid URLs. Was hoping for lat-long and other details, but no...
https://www.iana.org/time-zones

Looks like it's actually the union of admin_level 5 boundaries (in Canada, second-level census divisions) and each timezone.
The main point is that the Inuvik IANA boundary is HUGE - it's not the town's boundary!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/UTC_hue4map_CAN.png

I actually had thought that the IANA zone boundaries were simply the union of timezone and admin_level boundaries of 4 or 5. But there's a tz distinction between Inuvik and Yellowknife, which blows that out of the water. *shrug*

I see what's going on - you were looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tz_database_time_zones, undoubtedly.
This tz database contains geographical markers for timezone locations, but they themselves are NOT timezones.
I'll let you revert, as this is not a valid map change - but I'll do it myself in 48 hours if I don't get a response. Thanks!

"Inuvik Timezone"? How is there such a thing? What is your source?

Hiya! FYI - you don't need to mark a ford for a waterway that passes under a roadway in a tunnel - only when the waterway and roadway are on the same level! :)

Another thing - tracktypes don't render if you just use a number. Instead of 'tracktype=3' you have to use 'tracktype=grade3'.

How did you come to see a water body here?
way/722842789
This is most definitely NOT a lake.

Hold on - If you're talking about ending a waterway on a water body, and then restarting again on the other side - yes, that is an error, and I take full responsibility for doing that. That usually happens when there are multiple inflows into a waterbody and I haven't figured out which one (if any) continues.
But if you're talking about connecting a waterway node to a water-body node, that wiki page says nothing about that, and neither do osm.wiki/Rivers or natural=water.

I actually can't find the forum post that led me to start connecting waterways to lakes they feed. Do you have a link to anything that says to NOT do that? I looked at various places around Europe and found a mixture of both options being mapped.

I fixed it... not sure what happened

Did you accidentally have an offset on your imagery? The alignment for Camino Robore-Hito Palmar de las Islas went all weird!

Another point from a disaster response perspective: connecting a waterway to a water body allows flood alerts from one feature to cascade to the other. Example: flood alert for Lake A will easily create flood warnings for downstream waterways B, C & D, because they all intersect. If the waterways simply pass through without intersecting, it's much more difficult to accomplish.

So... first off, I've had mappers tell me the exact opposite too, just so you know. ;)
And based on feedback in the forums, I now connect most waterways to the water bodies they pass through.
Notice that JOSM does not actually give an "error" in the validation tool - it's simply the warning triangle on the map itself. I understand that those triangles are more a warning than an error - the intersection of area and way needs to be investigated to make sure it's valid. i.e. - two landuse areas can intersect (and always should) but a landuse should never intersect a natural feature or highway.
Another exqample that I've had to map in Bolivia: Seasonal highways that go through an intermittent lake MUST intersect the lake edges, and the portion in the lake needs to be split and tagged with "ford". JOSM will show the warning triangles, but shouldn't show an error.

I'm actually trying to make a wiki page on telling the difference. There are tell-tale signs that identify a route as a fence or as a cut-line instead of a road.

You are deleting valid roads, and adding non-existent roads! You are using Bing imagery, which is VERY old in this area! Please make sure you are using the latest imagery before deleting!!!

No creo que los existan. Mira sus otros changesets!
changeset/72579820
changeset/71234158
changeset/70000447
No más!