Windsor Essex Strong Towns, what is your question/comment?

I think it was the result of a split way that I failed to cleanup. Feel free to delete it.

I'm fine with changing building=semi to building=semidetached_house

I've fixed this issue and searched for other similar issues caused by the same group of changesets (I didn't find any). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is hard to avoid when editing interwoven boundary relations.

Thanks for catching this, I've fixed it. I was adding some highway=residential previously and it got caught in my stack.

Hi Marc,
I'm a local Gatineau mapper, and I can confirm that the roads/buildings added by this user are fake (at least in Gatineau, likely elsewhere too). Some of them may be "proposed" roads, although I couldn't find any evidence of that either for most of them.
DannyMcD

If I were adding provincial electoral districts, I would use a tag like political_division=prov_const to distinguish them from the federal ones. As far as I know, no provincial ones have been added yet. If someone does add provincial electoral districts, they'll have to think about the best way to distinguish the two types.

I've split Rue Joseph so that the way is fully within Buckingham/Gatineau. It looks like a small portion of Rue Joseph fell within L'Ange-Gardien, which is probably why Algolia says it is within L'Ange-Gardien. The Nominatim listing is already fixed, I'm not sure about the Algolia search result. It could take weeks or months for it to update, depending on how often it pulls OSM data.

Hi @padam_lucas, I'm not sure what street you're referring to. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say the street belongs to l'Ange-Gardien. Streets don't really belong to towns in OSM, except by location (i.e. lying partially/fully within the borders of the town). Third parties (eg. Nominatim) use OSM data in various ways to say streets are in towns, sometimes inaccurately. I can fix the border between L'Ange Gardien and Gatineau if that is wrong, but I doubt that will fix your problem.

@ARitz Cracker,
As I think I've made clear, I don't want to discuss this. I've solved your problem, please leave me alone. Your lack of understanding has been noted.

As for justifying this changeset: It was a mistake I almost immediately corrected (before you contacted me) by re-adding the addresses.

I'm willing to let you revert this changeset and stop using the reverter plugin. Would that satisfy you? I don't want to get into a long argument about it. If you do revert this changeset, you should know that I have re-added all these addresses in the same locations (shortly after the revert).

"Style" wasn't the right word, I meant something closer to "personality".

Woodpeck, I would prefer if you avoid if possible contacting me again. It is stressful dealing with your personal attacks (attacking my style and edits) and threats (e.g. preventing further contributions). If you must contact me, try to quickly get to what you want and what you threaten to do if you don't get it.

@ARitz Cracker, the issue has been fixed

The issue has been fixed, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Hi woodpeck,
I'm here to map things, not write justifications. That is my style, and I'm not going to apologize for it or change it. If you have a specific complaint, I can try to address it.

As for the reverter plugin, what authority do you have to stop me from using it?

Hi woodpeck,
I'm not sure I understand your concern; do you disagree with my revert? Why? What do you want?

OK, so I have un-deleted the trails I deleted by error. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Probably by mistake? Feel free to re-add

Any way, please do not reply further to this, or any other, changeset of mine.

You don't have to edit in Ottawa. That seems like an easy, "realistic" solution.