Hi ContraBand.

Are you sure this circular-ish area is actually not part of the park? If it's merely a restricted-access area, then it's still part of the park, and should be mapped differently, eg access tag. (I mapped the park originally from the AB gov't shapefile; there was no such exclusion at the time.)

Also, when creating a relation such as here, tags need to be removed from the outer way and copied to the relation. You've left them in place on the outer way, but here the whole relation seems unnecessary. Cheers.

This is good. These ways can't logically be merged, because a way can only have two ends, either separate ends or at the same node such as here.

Sometimes ways can be merged, eg adjacent blocks of a street, if they have equivalent tags, and then it's usually a good idea, but not essential.

It's a good idea to have ways connected (as they appear to be here), if they are in real life. EG, the semi-circular path being connected to the street. This helps routing.

BTW, welcome to OSM!

Poor-quality elevations may be better than none at all, but I'm not encouraging it. My experience has been, the gov't provided elevations, also the peak locations have been quite poor, when GPS readings from the summit have been available. Also, SRTM data, which provides topo contours, clearly disagrees with the old gov't data in many places.

On second glance... These roads are mature, no construction, so why are we creating motorway roads now? They would not have been missing from the map without being noticed long ago. Was something deleted in another changeset, and replaced in this one? Danger, don't mess with major roads without extreme caution; routing breaks.

Coincidentally, I drove those roads yesterday in both directions. I had a look in achavi. The only flaw I can see is the removal of the oneway:yes in the westbound part of the interchange. This is all one-way westbound, as eastbound traffic gets routed along 100 Ave to the south.

PS, I'd suggest natural=rock rather than tourism=attraction. It seems odd to be an "attraction" without even a trail approaching.

natural=rock
tourism=attraction

Thanks for clarifying. In that case, a single tag would be appropriate, "name" not "name:en". Cheers.

PS, translator says "Lion King's Pointing Station". Is this real?

Hi. Combined zh/en name should be at "name" tag, the name you entered should be at "name:zh", and the English translation only at "name:en". See many examples nearby.

PS, no ' in Peppers; see lake.

Hi. Would that name possibly be Solomon, not Solman? See peak name.

(Solomon's grave is in the valley; I visited it.)

Hi. For a multilingual name, there's a recommended way, and a good example is at relation/4555987#map=12/53.4832/-113.7502

President Pass is also doubled.

Hi. There was already a Kiwetinok Pass at the true height of land; I measured it in person. The CanVec version was in the wrong place as usual, but at least the error was invisible till now. Cheers.

Hi. Please don't invent names for sidewalks. Most sidewalks don't have, or need, names.

There's a slightly more appropriate "description" tag, though sidewalks don't generally need descriptions either.

Hi Solarisphere.

For your imports, might I suggest simplifying the waterways? They seem to be quite over-noded, out of scale to the overall precision.

I've done some bulk trimming in other areas while working on forest. In JOSM, I'd search for "waterway:stream allindownloadedarea source:CanVec", then Simplify (Shift-Y), with a precision of 3m (arbitrary, results in major trimming with virtually no visual difference).

BC is already a massive download if you're using offline maps. Cheers.

The unfortunate term "unclassified" keeps on giving, doesn't it? As most of us know, it's a perfectly valid classification, but newcomers see it as "needs to be fixed". It's a UK-ism we're stuck with.

I don't want to discourage accurate mapping; it all makes the map better. You're not the only mapper to map clearcuts, but I'm afraid the forests will grow back faster than enough OSM mappers can keep up with them. But, whatever you decide to work on is fine with me.

There's a pretty sweet viewpoint at the end of that trail. Have you been there?

Hi yegbin. Nice work on the added detail!

However, natural=forest isn't a recognized tag; you want either natural=wood or landuse=forest. I've been using the latter because the forest is actually used, for logging.

Also, I'm not sure about natural=grassland. I'm familiar with that area; it was logged a few years ago, so now it's full of young trees growing back.

In my mind, the entire area qualifies as landuse=forest (even the young-trees area), and that's how I've been mapping similar areas.

I believe there is recognized tagging for clearcuts, but I don't recall what it is. :) Too labor-intensive for me.

More info: https://vlwcommprod.blob.core.windows.net/vlwcomm-files/396b3328-e96a-47c0-b266-803003494c30-c94ba8b3-c400-4985-a4ae-92f261b2f6c2-SPR%20Bridge%20Removal%20.pdf

I'll leave it to other mappers to fine-tune this, if desired. EG, the extent of the closure is said to be 129-131 Streets; I didn't get into splitting the existing ways, in case the actual extent is different.

Groat Road below is closed for only a few days, and it's not appropriate to adjust the map there for a short-term closure.