Sure, that sounds good.

And to be clear, it is great that these centres have been imported - it just would have been nice to have a heads up. In terms of reverting, I've already done enough validation to make that undesirable.

In terms of problems you,
- overwrote on-the-ground names
- created duplicates for many existing childcare centres
- failed to validate that the centres still existed
- used addr:postal_code instead of addr:postcode, and didn't put a space in addr:postal_code
- failed to validate the addresses, which are sometimes not in an OSM-friendly format.
I am going through this import and validating it.

In addition, imports are supposed to get buy-in from the local community. Did you do this?

Yes, they should be on third Av. What QA tool are you using to find this error? OSM Inspector doesn't show this as an error, although it is a clearly visible anomaly if if you look at Nearest Roads/Connection Lines.

Is this automated edit discussed anywhere? I can't find any information.
DannyMcD

The units at 236 Paseo are numbered, I think (there is a single entrance for all of them). There are no intermediate addresses . The City addresses at http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset/addresspoints show this, as does Mapillary.

I have reported osm_validation_and_improvements with the "Report User" function - I'm still waiting to hear back. I mentioned the questionable name issue in the report.

Please stop making large scale re-classifications to Ontario places without discussion. This changeset will have to be reverted, you are just digging a bigger hole for yourself.

On the merits of the changeset, the wiki page for place=suburb says "Some mappers are of the view that areas of a town/city should not be tagged with place=town, place=village or place=hamlet, and that these should only be used for distinct settlements. However, this is not universally accepted practice." So even if the places in question were not "distinct settlements" (which they are), it would still be questionable to tag them as place=suburb.

@OntarioEditor, we obviously disagree on how to tag places in incorporated cities. I suggest that you contact the talk-ca mailing list to make your case, and see what the wider consensus is. If you do not do so within a reasonable period of time (say a week?), I will restore the original classification for these places.

For instance, for Tottenham: in changeset/66083824 on Jan 7, @VMeyer re-classified Tottenham as a suburb. I restored it to a village on Jan 10. In response, on Jan 19, in changeset/66444429, @OntarioEditor created a new node in exactly the same location as the old Tottenham node. Then in this changeset (which overlaps in time with @OntarioEditor's), @osm_validation_and_improvements deleted the old Tottenham node. @moe_fockler, @North_American_Highways, and possibly @ZackRogge-Riveros also seem to be duplicate accounts of @VMeyer.

This seems like a clear-cut abuse of multiple accounts - you created duplicate place nodes with OntarioEditor, then deleted the originals with osm_validation_and_improvements.
This makes it difficult to undo the changes (or even see the history of what happened), and destroys the place node history/metadata. I would guess both accounts are sockpuppets of VMeyer. If you want to re-classify all places within incorporated cities/towns/villages as suburbs, I suggest you contact the talk-ca mailing list first to see what others think. There is a case for it, but it should be done honestly and openly, not like in this changeset.
DannyMcD

EzekielT,
It looks like we have a serious difference of opinion on what do do here. I would suggest that you contact the talk-ca mailing list to see what the broader consensus is. Until then, I have reverted the names of the three places in question (returning to the status quo, in effect), and I would suggest that you cease editing Ontario places.
I will be OK with any situation where e.g. Trenton is visible on the map at a reasonable zoom level - I want to stop commonly used names from disappearing from the map.
DannyMcD

see @DannyMcD/diary/47455 for a discussion of this edit

Looking at some of the roads in question, I agree that a road that you can drive a normal car on should be tagged as a road. However, many roads in new areas should be tagged with *access=destination* to reflect that they are (legally) private roads owned by the developer. This also reflects the "No Trespassing" signs/blocks often present on these roads. The access tag can be removed when the road is officially assumed by the city, or when construction ends.

I agree the city is usually late in declaring roads open (at least according to the paved criterion). Having said that, they are sometimes too early, and there is sometimes no public access to roads they say are open (e.g there are gates or "No Trespassing" signs), so it would be good to have a process to verify the city's data. Putting notes on the map is one method to do this. I've done this for some newly added roads.

Hi Matt,
When the city updates their road status database, could you just put fixme's (or notes) on the map, instead of immediately flipping the roads to open. The city sometimes shows roads as open that are still under construction, but OSM shouldn't.
Danny

The boundaries you have for Nepean are the original township boundaries, which are used for land registration and a few other purposes. Most references (e.g. by Canada Post) to Nepean are to the old municipality (dissolved in 2001 into Ottawa), which had smaller boundaries.

Hi Dartmouthmapmaker,
Thanks for adding the Nepean boundary. In terms of tagging, I don't think boundary=administrative is quite right, since Nepean is not a current administrative entity. boundary=traditional or boundary=historical might be better.