This changeset contains at least some errors, placing a single address to a building with multiple address, or repeating the same address for multiple buildings. I've fixed some of it, but there's more to do.

Thanks for asking.

I'm afraid I'm not sure of that part of the subway. I was basing this edit on the images I saw of the construction plans right around Emily Carr. If I made any changes in the Broadway area, it was based on speculation of what a reasonable turning radius would be.

Thanks. Yes, that is the part I was referring to. Thanks for the confirming it is tagged properly.

Sounds good to me. I'm not sure what the normal way to tag a wading pool like this is.

oops, I forgot to update the source tag for this changeset, it should read "Esri World Imagery".

This marks part of the Trans Canada Trail as `access=no`, and maybe other trails in the area. Is the trail really closed to the public? Still?

You could be right `access=no` with `foot=designated` could mean that it is only open to walkers, but it is an unusual way of doing it. Tagging it how you did basicly means "no one is allowed here, except walkers". But footpaths are closed to motor vehicles by default, and in this context we are only really worried about foot and bicycle. Tagging it as `access=no` could lead to confusion, as it did with me, and as has happened with the default rendering. In the default rendering it just shows the trail as closed (that's why it's that light grey colour), and it ignores the foot=designated. It is unwise to tag for the renderer, but I'm just using this as an example of the confusion that can arise from an automated system from the way it's been tagged, as well as the way I misunderstood it.

I've removed the unnecessary access tags, and left the `bicycle=no` tag. This is much easier for humans and automated systems to parse.

Hey, thanks for asking the individual campsites. That's really helpful!

This changeset marks "nature trail" closed to walkers as well as cyclists, but the edit summary only mentions cyclists. Is it really closed?

The link to the pdf doesn't work, maybe that's the cause of my confusion.

Thanks for the message, I answered on the original changeset (changeset/101006739) to keep the thread in one place.

It's a good article.

Unfortunately, yes they do not show up in the Standard tile layer. One of the mapping rules is "don't map for the renderer", or to say it another way, don't define things based on how you want them to look on the map, define them based on what they are. In this case it results in the markers not being shown.

That said, while they are apparently not classified as art by the city, there could be an argument that they are some sort of art, and art related tags could be added.

You've not really answered my question about the source of your info about the private parcel boundaries. Is it the Esri Clarity imagery? I also walk in the area frequently and do not see these details on the ground.

While some of the changes this edit introduces may be "temporary" on the ground, we're looking at 5 years for completion of the Broadway line, so it's good to map them.

When I say that there are many details not included in the imagery I mean things like this:
way/953633823 or way/953633828

There plenty of small details that do not correspond to anything in the imagery. The landuse traces you deleted followed the road edge, these seem to be trying to follow the private plots of land, but you can't get that from the imagery.

I'm not sure if you've tagged Hummingbird Place as well as it could be. I've not visited this facility, but my understanding is that this is a supported housing facility, built using the modular housing technique. I do not think it is right to call it a group home, or to say it is for homeless people. If it is housing, not a shelter, then it is for formally homeless people, and they now have housing. I'd like to remove the social facility tags, as I did with Sanford Apartments, a facility I'm more familiar with.

I just double checked, and I was correct with the southern end of the pedestrian section correct.

Are these traces based on the Esri Imagery, as the changeset tags state? It contains many details that are not visible in the imagery, so it seems that there is more going on here.

I wanted to let you know that I've retagged the obelisks you've added. The way you tagged them seems to be meant for very large monuments. I think the way I've tagged them in a way that makes more appropriate.

By the way, have you seen this article? https://scoutmagazine.ca/2017/01/04/you-should-know-the-explanation-behind-the-odd-granite-obelisks-of-mount-pleasant/

An interesting piece about these markers.

This edit adds the last of the sidewalk traces to Vancouver proper, except for a few odds and ends that I missed.

Hi Andrea, I wanted to let you know that I made some changes to how you mapped Sanford Apartments, and the Resource Centre. I work in the field, and have been inside both facilities, and have some knowledge about them. Here is a link to my changeset, let me know if you'd like more info about my edit. changeset/104907827#map=19/49.26562/-123.14131