Uh, excuse me: yes there frickin' is a a giant chess board there. >:(

You had already added this supermarket, node/12101056439; changeset/155031279

I have since deleted this node.

I should be clear: I replaced the "service:vehicle:a/c_recharge=yes" tag with "service:vehicle:air_conditioning=yes" so that there's no confusion about this fixme note again.

Also added detail to the parking lot/alley in behind the old library & Police Admin buildings.

*Prince's Island Estates, not Eau Claire Estates

(to-may-to, to-mah-to...)

Thanks for adding these, Minh. :)

I don't know speak Chinese (or any other language that may historically/incidentally use Han characters), so wasn't very confident about adding the names in Chinese. (Whereas e.g. changeset/128536413 I had public online sources from the City of Calgary to simply copy-paste the characters from.)

Hi Andrew,

You seem to have pulled these nodes:
- node/21090802
- node/156900270
- node/2146618559
- node/2146618569
- node/2242331674

... in Toronto all out of whack. Seems unrelated to your changes in Calgary. I've since tried my best to fix it. (see changeset/157683486)

Hi Andrew, FYI the road ways you added in this change seem to have been duplicates of existing ones already on the map. I presume you were trying to fix the connectivity of the #9 Dalhousie bus route, and JOSM mistakenly generated new ways rather than adding the existing ones to the relation.

I've since fixed it. (See changeset/157593048)

Just wanted to let you know, to keep a lookout as you continue to make sure it's not adding copies of road ways on top of existing ones.

Thanks!

:/

You should have fixing the tagging here, rather than deleted the alley. I have since re-added it. Please be more careful in future.

Hi Callem,

Please note that the roads you changed the access tagging to were already tagged `access=no`. This means that public access is strictly prohibited, so you really didn't need to change this. Please see access=*.

Thanks!

"disused:shop=yes" seems like a silly tag to use here, it's a disused architect's office space on the top floor of a historic building.

Sorry, change leisure=park, not *landuse*. Anyway...

I know there's a warning here for using the barrier=block tags on two line ways in lieu of node points, but I don't know of any better tagging to use in such a situation. In reality what's there is two courses of these types of interlocking concrete blocks: https://concrete-security-barriers.co.uk/lg-interlocking-concrete-barrier/

... plus a metal fence on top of it. The fence and the blocks are partially contiguous, but not entirely, which is why I mapped them as separate ways.

If someone has a better idea of what to do, feel free to change it!

Hello feathered_ouul,

I noticed you've made a number of changes across Western Canada recently, with the changeset comment as per above: "A number of node changes."

Can you please be more specific? At a cursory glance you seem to be making changes such as adding or fixing wikidata tags to businesses, updating bus stop tags and the like, but also many changes to areas & ways (e.g. buildings & pedestrian crossings) which aren't immediately clear.

Thanks!

Hi Caidyn,

Can you please add changeset comments to elaborate on what you're doing? Please see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments.

With respect to this sidewalk you edited in this changeset, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the `bicycle=yes` tagging is inappropriate. City of Calgary Traffic Bylaw 26M96 paragraph 42(1)(c) prohibits bicycles from being ridden on sidewalks. There are exceptions for children under the age of 14 and for newspaper carriers, but otherwise it's generally not allowed.

Thanks!

Is it really *under construction* though...? I think it's a bit specious to say it is. There's some earthworks going on in Ogden, and there are some utilities relocation projects going on downtown, but the railway line itself is still not under construction. They're not even done detailed design yet.

Hello Whoabot,

Going forward can you please split these sorts of changesets into two? Grouping changes made in Alaska with changes made almost 3000 km away in Manitoba makes it very difficult for others to parse the changes you've made.

Please see osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for more info.

Thanks!

Just want to add further context to why I changed this, as it cannot really be captured in a 255-character changeset comment.

The Stoney Nakoda have been historically grouped together as one "First Nation" (as we call them now), as one recognized Indian Band, by the federal government, but they have contested that that was never their intent when they signed Treaty 7, and administratively the Bearspaw, Chiniki and Goodstoney bands (within the context of the Indian Act) have been semi-independent the entire time. As they see it, the Canadian government had unilaterally grouped them together for administrative convenience. (E.g. this is why there is a single reserve area with three numbers attached to it: 142, 143 & 144.)

They do have an overarching tribal council, with representatives from each of the Bearspaw, Chiniki and Goodstoney, but have been seeking independent recognition (and funding agreements) as individual "First Nations". As such they have in recent years been conducting collective affairs as the Stoney Nakoda Nation*s*, and I've updated the name to the plural in English & en français to match this more current usage.

Hi Ron,

Thank you for your contribution to OSM.

FYI `access=*` tags can be added to `highway` ways to specify whether things are publicly accessible or not. See access=*. Just because something is publicly inaccessible does not mean it ought to be deleted from the map. (Otherwise, hypothetically we ought to delete almost everything on the YYC airfield, haha.)

Thanks again for your contribution!

lane_markings=no?

Maybe I'm not clear on what that tagging means, but if there's a yellow centreline up the middle of this road—which I can tell you is absolutely the case, just from looking out a window from where I'm at right this very second—does that not mean there *are* "lane_markings"? I thought "lane_markings=no is meant for where there are no markings whatsoever.