Hi again. Thanks for understanding with your ongoing work, which looks good.

(There are minor issues with forest overlap, trees in water for example, but I can easily make a sweep to fix those up when it looks like you're done in the area.)

Cheers,
VP

Hi. Yes, if you've ever tried to edit a massive CanVec polygon, or compared their landuse or trail data with reality, you might have an idea why I'm down on CanVec.

But these simple big polygons are ones *I* added, to "give the forest a start", and to discourage CanVec from coming in. Later, mappers like you or me can add detail to the forest.

If some of my forest polygons are too large, and have triggered the JOSM validator, my apologies. I can shrink them. But those big forests *do* appear to be accepted as valid by every renderer I've seen.

I've only deleted a CanVec mega-polygon once, I think, and I immediately hand-added a replacement. Perhaps nobody noticed. :)

I need to be off the internet now for a few days. Happy mapping,
VP

Once again, please STOP deleting forest polygons.

I've repaired this, with some enhancements to the original polygon, which was admittedly rather basic.

But please, even a roughly traced forest is better than none at all...

Please stop deleting forest relations!

Hi edathy.

Please be careful to not delete forest polygons when editing - large areas suddendly became white. I've repaired the damage here.

I've noticed you removed some lakes, then added them again. Better would be to redraw the existing object; that keeps the history.

Regards, VP

I think so. For example, large rectangles of forest (replacing nothing but white) where there are indeed forests. It's a start, an incremental improvement that's perfectly correct at low zoom levels. I don't have time to do a perfect job; nobody does. But I DO make sure every changeset is an improvement on what was there before.

Later people can add more detail as they have time or inclination. And that's already been happening.

Also, I think mapping these forests broadly discourages CanVec imports, an ongoing threat, which are full of finely-grained *incorrect* detail, and is an absolute devil to modify.

Hi again interdite.

I've restored the forest you deleted, also a lake.

Please don't delete features that don't meet your standards, unless you're willing to replace them with something better. Thank you.

Hi interdite.

Do you plan to replace the lake you deleted with a better version? Because there IS a lake on the ground, and a roughly traced lake is better than no lake.

This applies to forests as well. You've been deleting forests left and right, but those forests DO exist. Please stop doing that.

I've fixed this and several other removed forests.

I've left the new industrial areas and lakes as inner members of the (restored) forest polygons, meaning no trees inside.

Hi interdite.

If you want to add areas such as industrial, and not have trees from the surrounding wood appear inside them, you need to make those new areas "inner" members of the wood outer polygon.

Please do not simply delete large areas of forest. This makes things worse!

Hi AG.

I think landuse=recreation_ground is wrong for PRAs such as Blue Rapids. The wiki at landuse=recreation%20ground?uselang=en-US says "An open green space for general recreation", but this area is almost completely forested, not "open".

The reservoir looks much better now, thanks.

Hi. The name Candy Cane Lane IS official; it was in the local news. 148 St. probably still remains as an alternate name.

Note that "doubling up" names in a single element is discouraged; there are variants of the Name key for that. See name=*?uselang=en-GB

The way I had it originally was suitable.

Ah okay, thanks. I can guess where the "empty" line is (start of chart), and I see it's never gone back to empty.

Anyway, if it's tagged as water=reservoir, I think that should be sufficient, as reservoirs by definition go up and down. Leaving it tagged as intermittent would be unusual (I've never seen it elsewhere) to say the least.

Saludos,
VP :)

Thanks for following up on this. BTW, my understanding is, the reservoir is primarily for power generation, with flood abatement as a fringe benefit. (Just before Y2K, I was amazed to see it full-to-overflowing, a bit of "electricity storage", just in case, I suppose.)

Hi badenk.

What have you done to Abraham Lake? You turned it into an intermittent riverbank. This is wrong; it's a man-made reservoir, never empty (therefore not intermittent), and deserves to be labelled as Abraham Lake.. (The existing CanVec name nodes are insufficient for the name.)

I'm referring to the large, wide body of water on the east edge of this changeset area, of course.

Hi CW.

You've marked some trails as access=no, which means, basically, no trespassing. A common misconception, it seems.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent, so I've removed those tags.

Hi AG. Lois Hole Park is largely or entirely wild land, eg marshes, lake, trees. I wouldn't classify it as recreation_ground, which suggests park-like areas meant for human activity. Cheers.

Also note that place=islet is more appropriate for areas < 1 sq km, such as this one. When given a name, micro "islands" are absurdly prominent on some maps.