Fixed.

To clarify, *bike* routing is broken, presumably along with foot. The wiki doesn't specify that construction implies no access, hence routers are free to route through construction if they wish. Here, access=foot=bicycle=NO.

Hello. Foot=yes (et al) override access=no, which is incorrect here. (Routing is broken again.) No access period, right now. Survey. Trust me.

Wow - high productivity mapper! Thanks for the attention you've been giving to my home area. Looking better all the time. :)

Hi.

You've credited aerial imagery as the source, but imagery won't indicate that bicycles aren't allowed.

The adjacent staircase sections all have bicycle ramps, so clearly bikes *are* allowed.

I've made the change.

(Piling-on Dept...)

Where does the name "swag pond dap" come from?

(And psst, capitalization...)

Hi. It appears you added this aboriginal_lands where a relation already exists; now there are two. This is the original:
relation/11349701/history

I suggest removing this one and using language tags (name:??) for the name in the other.

Clarification: I meant waterway=river (centreline); name belongs there.

Also worth mentioning, name goes on the waterway (missing here), not the area. (Not covered by the link above.) Cheers.

Hi KBM.

From the wiki, "Use the access=* key to describe a general access restriction that applies to all transport modes."

Since you've covered the various permitted access types (bicycle etc), "access=no" conflicts with that, and should be omitted. Cheers.

Hi KBM. It's funny; I just realized we're both editing the same area at the same time; in fact you added a trail I was meaning to. :)

Could you let me know when you're done in the area? I'd like to do a little fine-tuning on landcover, and don't want to collide. Thanks, VP.

Hi. With this changeset, you added a small amount of forest, and deleted a massive one, leaving a large empty rectangle. I had added this by hand earlier, and did so again today.

Please be careful when deleting relations. It never hurts to double-check that your changes render as expected.

Thanks for replying. If these conspicuous "names" aren't used anywhere in public sphere, only in the bowels of the planning department, maybe they should be tagged as description=*, not name=*.

My opinion, but your department. :)

Ah, I guess we had this conversation (or one like it) already; I'm forgetful.
changeset/89141862

Still, I can't find this name, even on the city's map you mentioned there.

Hi. I'm curious, where did "Western Mature Area" come from? Not from imagery, obviously, but that's all you've credited as a source..

That odd-sounding name doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on edmonton.ca, and a search of the broader internet just brings up dating sites...

Potentially caused by changeset/94600946

Hi. I made a crude emergency fix to the river, in the same area as your changes yesterday, to fix a sudden breakage of the massive polygon. There were a handful of validation errors (inner overlapping outer, self-crossing ways), and when I fixed these, the river started rendering again.

Also, source=Bing, an infinitesimal improvement over the imported mess, but still quite sloppy compared to reality.

Can it be? It seems the emergency fix worked.

Hi. Since this is inaccessible to the public, tourism=* is inappropriate; see tourism=wilderness%20hut?uselang=en

I would suggest instead, building=cabin, access=no, and name="Xxxx Warden Cabin" if known.

Hi FS99A.

Why access=no for the trailhead parking? Your changeset source only mentions imagery. According to the current trail report, there's no mention of any restrictions.