Hi boarder.

While debugging the disappearance of a lake I mapped, I noticed you've been using landuse=basin for natural water bodies. The wiki at landuse=basin?uselang=en-US suggests that's for artificial basins, eg man-made.

I've changed landuse=basin to natural=water in this area. I didn't add water=lake or water=pond etc, as that part appears to be optional.

I see lots of trails in this area now; that looks to be mostly your work. Good job.

Happy mapping,
VP

Hi FS99A.

1. It's not necessary to mark a trail junction like this; it's obvious from a glance at the map that this is a junction.

2. Simply putting a name tag on a node of a way doesn't cause any map (that I know of) to display the name.

3. "Trail junction" isn't a name, it's a description. Think of it this way: if there was a sign, it wouldn't say "Trail junction".

Thank you for your interest in Ministik. I keep an eye on it, as I've done virtually all the mapping here.

Looks perfectly reasonable to me. You added leisure=nature_reserve, which seems perfectly logical for this kind of park.

(In case anybody was to chime in about "tagging for the renderer". I wouldn't consider this to be an example.)

Since this is kind of your area, do you think the surrounding burbs like Sherwood Park, St. Albert etc. count as "city"? By OSM rules it seems they shouldn't, but I'm reluctant to wade into that...

I never knew there was a distinction. :) Sounds like you know what you're doing; carry on. Thanks.

Hi AG.

You've got a suburb node for Strathcona mapped much farther south than the other ways the same name is mapped, eg relation/7820664

PS, leisure=common (used nearby) doesn't seem right either. That's for land that has an owner, with some public rights of access. The river valley is public land, so it doesn't really have an owner.
leisure=common

Hi AG.

For urban wooded parks, may I suggest natural=wood, but NOT leisure=park? The wiki at leisure=park suggests the latter is for "parks" in the open-space-for-recreation sense.

The wooded area can still have a name, as in the nearby Mill Creek Ravine example.

BTW, the parking lot at Henrietta Muir Edwards Park has trees in it. :)

Thanks,
VP

This answers something I've wondered about. It looks like the CanVec imports (grr) have mislabelled schools as prisons all across Canada, not just in Alberta.

(Somebody's attempt at a joke based on their unhappy schooling?)

If you come across a situation like this again, you might like to mark the area as landuse=construction. That would make the intent more clear.
Happy mapping. :)

Hi KOE. I'll interject here.
JOSM complains when you remove the name from a bridge (imports have created these aplenty) when the road/bridge is tertiary or above.

I've been removing names (sometimes) because I agree with your logic. But the warnings bug me.

Hi. Looks good, but I'd leave the house number blank rather than "not visible".

You left behind a mess.
Do you feel any sense of obligation to clean it up? Because someone will have to.

Hi OrcaTheBrave.

Re Hasse Lake Park, it looks like you've confused the concept of "park" vs "forest/wood", as you've re-traced the boundary of the park to follow the forest contours.

But a park boundary is a property boundary, and the previous version was more accurate. Properties in this area tend to be rectangular, and quite likely the east shore of this lake is private property.

Also, leisure=park in this area isn't appropriate; see leisure=park
The original leisure=nature_reserve was more suitable.

I'd suggest reverting these changes.

Hi.
It seems you've accidentally deleted part of 100 Street northbound. This will break routing. I've fixed it.

Please be careful editing major streets.

Hi. Something seems wrong with the tagging of Hong Kong Station. You removed "station=subway". Perhaps as a result, when you search OSM for "Hong Kong", this station shows up near the top of the list, as a house.

Hi. I know I'm coming to this discussion a year late. This must be the discussion referenced in the change that promoted Sherwood Park to a "city".

Sherwood-Park-as-city seems and looks wrong. We're expected to map using OSM classifications, per the wiki, not according to the whims of government officials; they tend to have grandiose views of their jurisdictions.

The wiki for place=city says "largest settlement or settlements within a territory". Being right next to Edmonton, Sherwood Park (not to mention Fort Sask, et al) are hardly the "largest".

With Sherwood Park being the same level as Edmonton, some maps might possibly render SP but not Edmonton, due to a lack of space for both.

Hi Sundance.

You never attribute your sources. I came across www.openstreetmap.org/way/31930832 which you recently promoted to a secondary highway, Highway 921. In various imagery sources all I see is a wobbly track that hardly qualifies as unclassified, and GeoBase Roads calls it a Range Road.

Do you have info that it was recently upgraded to a proper highway? (I'd be willing to believe that, but there's also a highway immediately east of here.)

Thanks,
VP who's working on road classifications and noticed this.

Also source=survey, local usage

Motorway?!? No no no...

I'm happy to clean up raw-GPS tracks, which I know are scattered around the mountains. I've cleaned up a bunch already; I've got the technique figured out. If you find more, just send me a message, or maybe put a Note on the map, and it'll be taken care of. Thanks.

The "motorway" stood out dramatically even at very low zoom.