Thanks for updating this! I drove through some of the changes this morning with my GPS so I could update things, but looks like you beat me to it!

Did you just update this because of DirtyTesla ;)

Really?

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to buildings in High Level.
It looks like your traces of the buildings have some odd angles in them, whereas in the ESRI imagery it looks like the buildings have 90 degree angles.
I thought it might help your future mapping to tell you about the "orthogonalize" button in the iD map editor: with a building selected, you can press the q key to make all the angles be 90 degrees. It greatly speeds up mapping to use this shortcut!
Have a nice day!

Hello, and thank you for your contribution to OSM!
Just so you're aware, judging by the ESRI imagery, it looks like these 3 buildings are actually 1, with hallways and some odd angles connecting them. Normally this would be drawn as 1 building rather than 3 overlapping buildings.

Hello, it looks like you've made some sharp angles in Silver Creek and accidentally connected it to the roadway.
Also, is there really a tunnel connecting Hall Road to Tenth Line, going under Silver Creek? I can't seem to find a news article about such a major construction project taking place. Do you have any reference or photos?
Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to OSM!
For the boat launch, I've updated the tags so that it now has leisure=slipway. This way, the server knows what it is, and can show the little boat ramp icon. Thank you for making the Nova Scotia map a little bit better.

Potential misspelling in the name?

Thank you for the contribution to OSM!

For your information, the barrier=gate tag should be used at the specific point where the gate exists, and the the trail itself would still be tagged with highway=path and access=private. Is the gate right beside Rennie Road, or is it in from the road a bit?

Are there other gates that prevent accessing the trails from Hecker Road or Tasman Road?

Thanks again for contributing to the Courtney area!

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to OpenStreetMap. It looks like you have directly traced the roof outline from overhead photos, but the roof angles have added extra corners that don't exist in the building outline. The building outlines should be more "rectangular" to match the blueprint of the building. Please see the guidance here with respect to "double pitched roof": osm.wiki/Roof_modelling#Typical_errors_in_the_interpretation_of_roof_geometry_from_aerial_images
Also, the iD editor can help automatically make objects more rectangular by pressing the Q button while editing an object.

Hello, when tagging a commercial area like the beach buildings, you wouldn't tag the area as natural=beach. That tag should only be used on the sandy beach area.

You could tag the building area as "landuse=commercial", and then each building you could tag appropriately, like "shop=alcohol" "name=LCBO".

I'm guessing there's not actually a railway inside this offramp in Vaughan. Did you intend to tag this a different way? Perhaps as a footway or path?

It looks like you added a new run "Gentle Giant" on top of the existing run "Gentle Giant" (so there's two runs on top of each other).
The new run also looks like it goes through some trees and a building. Was this a rough trace from GPS tracks? If you're trying to add a little ski-in/ski-out path, maybe a short unnamed run that branches off the bottom of Gentle Giant and goes between the trees and buildings would be better? Sorry I can't help more, it's been about 2 decades since I last visited Sun Peaks.

Hello from 3.5 years later. I noticed this because it looks like a duplicate way of an inner polygon that already existed.

Thanks for reminding me about this sidewalk crossing. There's also a new tag that was approved in the wiki just in December, called crossing:continuous=yes that works perfectly in this situation. So I added that as well.

Actually, upon looking around the wiki a bit more, if you look at the "Talk" page for man_made=survey_point, there is a table with pictures of example tags (uploaded by user T99), and aerial=yes is the first example in that table. This photo gives an idea of what I'm talking about. However, the X in that photo is much smaller than the X markers near Yellowknife - the ones near Yellowknife are around 2-3 meters across.

The tag aerial=yes (now deprecated on the wiki) was originally used for survey points that have a marker visible from the air. In the case of these survey points near Yellowknife, the marker is a giant white X painted on the ground, and the survey marker is at the intersection of the X. This serves the purpose of making it easy to align photographs that have been taken from an airplane with a known point on the ground (accurate to a few centimeters). This is very useful for aligning "Bing Aerial Imagery", or "ESRI World Imagery", and I don't know why it was marked as "deprecated" in the wiki without having replacement tagging.

Based on the wiki, as far as I know, there is currently no way to tag survey points that have markers visible from the air, even though it's a very useful feature for mappers.

Oops. Not sure how I missed that in JOSM validator. I've fixed that, and checked all the other speed limit signs in the area.

Looks like you took away the "construction" status of Stoney Trail motorway and tagged it as an active motorway. I drove past this two days ago and they were still actively paving it. The contractors have not announced it opening. Did you change the status in error? What source do you have for it opening? A major change to a major highway like this should probably go in its own changeset.
Thanks

That import came from the Government of Canada and was quite accurate in my home town, as well as checks throughout the province. I think it may have pre-dated the availability of Bing Maps imagery, using Yahoo aerial imagery at the time, and probably low resolution in Prince Rupert area.
I've looked over your edits, and they look good to me - thanks for letting me know!