Yes, my mistake, I've fixed it.

I added it from my phone, and on the small screen didn't notice the cafe had already been created. I also repositioned the old node, to place it within the building.

Thanks for fixing this. I am aware that Tso means lake, but "Tso Kar" was the only name I'd heard used for this settlement. May I ask where you got the name "Thukje" from?

That does not explain why you deleted the way that mapped what was beach. Did you follow the link to the way I linked to in my comment?

I'd also be interested in why [this way](way/1314750813/history) was deleted. I was the one who mapped that beach, and do not understand why it was deleted.

I've noticed that people often don't do imports any closer to towns than this. Is it because it is too tough to get the import to work with the existing data when the existing data is pretty high density?

Thanks for adding these addresses!

LOL, exactly!

I'd missed a couple places these tags had been added, and only cleaned them up today. Please be cautious about adding tags like this, and don't base edits on assumptions, as it is a pain to clean up messes like this.

I've been working on it, deleting some areas, and retagging some as `natural=wetland`, `wetland=tidalflat` when the satellite imagery makes that look likely.

Thanks for updating this. It was closed for some time during construction of the new road to the north, but I passed this way again a few days ago, and it is open again.

Thanks for updating this, I'd not heard that news.

OK, sounds like it doesn't mean anything here on OSM, so I'll see what I can do in terms of deleting the relations and ways.

I'm not very experienced with imports, but the one I did I documented what tags I used in the imported dataset and how I translated them into OSM tags on my import userpage (@keithonearth_imports). While the one import I did is far less complex than yours, and I could have done a better job of phrasing it, I think it's a good thing to do. I'm not sure about the rules about imports, but I recommend the approach.

I was going to say it's only been a couple of years since the only import I've done, and I've already forgotten the details. But it turns out that it's been 7 years. I couldn't remember how I translated the CoV data tags a few months later, or which ones I used and which ones I discarded, but I don't have to because I wrote it down.

Hi James, I've seen a number of sections of sea on the coast of Haida Gwaii, tagged as `natural=water` and `intermittent=yes`, below the `natural=coastline`, like this one: way/299759857/

This is a strange tagging convention, and I'm not sure how to interpret it. Areas of sea that are exposed at low tide? Reefs? Something else? Do you know what the features were intended to represent in the Canvec data? How could we better tag them? As the features are currently tagged they do not mean anything, and are messy.

This changeset added the same address to multiple building traces. This should not be done. If there are really more than one building with the same address the address should be added once, either on a central node, or on a landuse area. In this case the one building was incorrectly mapped as many, and I've fixed that, and deleted the unnecessary address tags.

I'm going through fixing some address errors in this changeset too. The usual stuff: the same address added to multiple buildings, or buildings with multiple addresses only being mapped with one. Only buildings with one address seem to usually be correct.

I'm going through fixing some wrong addresses for this changeset too.

oops, I forgot to link to the example relation: relation/3989104/

This import seems to include coastal regions of sea tagged as both `natural=water` and intermittent=yes`, I've just found this as relations, but there may be some mapped as a single circular way. (example relation:

Some of them seem to be areas of shallow water, probably to the low tide line. Others include deeper water. To my knowledge OSM does not map low tide lines, nor does it make sense to me to map some areas of sea as `natural=water`, as opposed to `natural=bay`, or some other named feature.

I'm tempted to just delete the relations as I come across them. Do you have any input?

Here's a link to my edit making the changes:

changeset/153187014

Here's a link to the changeset in question: changeset/123327250