DENelson83's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 83285349 | over 5 years ago | Canada Post says it's there. It may be in the adjacent pharmacy, though. I hope I didn't get that wrong. |
| 8794458 | over 5 years ago | This location does not match the address for this post office in Canada Post's records. Is this actually a post office, or just a mailbox? |
| 82766928 | over 5 years ago | We always appreciate additional ground surveys, and you can use the spreadsheets linked on that wiki page to guide such a survey. However, given the current COVID-19 pandemic, you may want to stay in your home community for now. |
| 82844581 | over 5 years ago | Thanks for the help. Good start. :) |
| 82766928 | over 5 years ago | I noticed that you just added another post office in Ontario. If you have not seen this yet, may I interest you in it? |
| 77215537 | almost 6 years ago | The bay in relation #9964568 actually has a name, "Port Moody". Yes, it shares its name with the city on its east shore. |
| 50652308 | almost 6 years ago | Are you sure that address for the 108 Mile Supermarket is correct? |
| 80058210 | almost 6 years ago | Yes. "en:" is now added. Thank you. |
| 73453534 | about 6 years ago | Yes. This is one of the electoral areas of the Regional District. |
| 74594014 | over 6 years ago | Why'd you remove the name "Thrifty Foods"? |
| 73256439 | over 6 years ago | This is the methodology used for such points in British Columbia. They are tagged with "natural=cape" and not "place=locality". To me, "place=locality" would suggest a place that a person might have some interest in visiting, while "natural=cape" simply suggests a natural coastline feature with an official name. However, if you feel that some of these points don't qualify for the "natural=cape" tag, you may revert them. |
| 56124666 | over 6 years ago | I've just visited the Tasman Road end of this path, and strangely enough, I don't see any "no trespassing" signs at this end. |
| 56124666 | over 6 years ago | I have not been that way yet. I am performing a ground survey of street addresses in Area C, and just finished putting in all of the addresses off Left Road. |
| 56124666 | over 6 years ago | I was just in this area today, and saw that additional "no trespassing" signs were posted at the currently-plotted entrance to this trail on Eagles Drive. I seriously believe that this land is private property, and the landowner does not want anyone using this trail. |
| 68029730 | almost 7 years ago | Would you happen to know why you tagged the trail through Ravenwood Park, way #676059280, as "access=no"? |
| 64637020 | about 7 years ago | Well then, next time I fire up JOSM, I'll just have to remove that data. But that raises another question: How would we be able to properly add this data? I do see a valid use case for it in OSM. |
| 61455342 | over 7 years ago | It's a community mailbox, where mail for multiple addresses can be picked up. That fits the definition of "amenity=letter_box", so I have just changed it to that. Thank you for the suggestion. |
| 10569444 | over 7 years ago | Re way #148485129: You had a fixme note at this location indicating some temporary coastline data.
|
| 59247374 | over 7 years ago | I have fixed the problem. That woodland relation is once again intact. |
| 58561369 | over 7 years ago | This change worked. The boundaries of these three provincial parks are now visible in OsmAnd. |