link: changeset/87866102

Thanks for the comment. I do think it is a bit of a grey area, because I agree with your first interpretation that `highway=track` is appropriate even if it isn't publicly accessible. The thing is that this is only very rarely accessed by Metro Vancouver Parks trucks. I think I have seen one there too, but it's very unusual. And it is very common to use this as a trail. That is why I feel that it is more appropriate to tag this as a trail. Not because it's *wrong* to tag it as a track, just that it's far more accurate to tag it as a trail, and more helpful to the vast majority of users.

I'm at my computer now, so I'll change it back to trail.

Hi Mark, I see you have updated the tagging of Twin Bridges Trail. I totally agree, that it is wide and gravel. It seems to me that it is not used as a road, and based on its use we can more accurately tag it as a trail. Are you basing its classification based solely on it's width?

This edit was just in the immediate vicinity of Fraser River Park, but did change some of the river bank traces.

Thanks for such a useful edit summery. I only noticed the name change now, and was glad to have it explained.

Here's a proper link to the changeset that introduced the errors: changeset/86894976

Hello and welcome to OSM VancouverHistoricalPhotos! Thanks for contributing. I'm just a normal volunteer here, just like you, but I've been doing it for a while now, and wanted to let you know that this edit has introduced some errors in the a section of the cycleway. (here: way/336803184) You removed the tags that marked it as a cycleway, so it just looked like an old railway track, even though there it was converted to a bicycle path a few years back.

I hope you continue to edit, but please do be careful about introducing errors.

I have fixed it with my recent edit: changeset/87048728

Hi thanks for paying attention, and seeing my note. I added the note from my phone, while cycling past, and I got the location a bit off. I then added the bench in the proper location, and forgot about the note... I've deleted the bench you added, because I put the note on the wrong side of the trail.

Sorry for the confusion.

At least two of the buildings in this edit mistakenly have a single address added, when two exist in reality. (way/331442853/history and way/331442829/history)

It's cool you added the Russian name to the church, but I've moved it to the `name:ru` tag. If you have Russian language skills it'd be great to get some more multilingual `name:ru` tags around the Vancouver, but I don't think it should go into the default `name` tag, even for Russian things like this church. спасибо!

Very amusing, but I think it should be removed. Do I really need to say why?

Thanks Arun, that's kind of you to say. Means lots coming from a pro.

Maybe I should add that I also walked by this block today, and checked the progress of the building on Main Street. While it is not ready for people to move in yet, the construction of the structure is completed. As it is not visible in the imagery yet, the trace is very approximate.

This edit removes all tags, except the name tag, from Griffen Switchbacks. Was this done because the path is no longer publicly accessible? If so wouldn't adding `access=no` be more appropriate?

Fair enough. I'll have to pay attention if I'm in there again.

Is the post office actually inside Nesters? I've been there a number of times, and don't remember seeing it, but wasn't actually looking for a post office.

Thanks for the info, I have reverted my edit, and the node is back, with its edit history maintained: node/7120449583

That said, is this the best way to tag it? I think my original confusion was expecting an object that was more oriented for tourists. Would tagging it as some sort of memorial make more sense? Or... Something else?

I can't verify the name tag, as I don't remember if the named business is still at that location, or has moved.

I've deleted this node, as I'm familiar with this intersection, and there is nothing here that I can see this node reasonably representing. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I say impossible river crossings, impossible at present, but I am only temporarily visiting town. It may be more possible at other times. I am still convinced that this trail, if it exists at all, was so inaccurately mapped that deletion was the only sensible thing to do.