The railway right-of-way still exists on the ground - it is clear that these paths used to be rail lines (e.g. from the gentle grades and turns). Worldwide, rail trails almost always have railway=abandoned, from the Tammany Trace in Louisiana to the Ruwer-Hochwald-Radweg in Germany. I will be re-adding the railway=abandoned tag.

All these paths are abandoned railways, so the railway=abandoned tag seems appropriate. Is there some reason for removing it?

I have corrected this. I think this error was due to my mis-interpreting a CanVec address node as a real address node.

I was trying to get residential landuse to render over woods. Adding layer=1 doesn't work, as I learned from this experiment. I've removed the layer tag.

I think (long-lasting) Airbnb listings are fine for OSM - they are effectively guest houses. Also, please don't delete buildings - just remove offending tags.
DannyMcD

This is a mistake that happens when merging addresses in iD. I have fixed it (by deleting the relation)

Hi Undearius,
I'm not sure I like these proposed buildings being tagged as building=proposed - maybe proposed:building = retail would be better? They show up now (in Mapnik+probably OSMAnd?) as normal buildings. which is confusing, since they aren't actually there.
DannyMcD

I was using the .shp file (from February). The more recent .csv file seems to no longer have the addresses on 995+997 River Rd. This means it only lists some of the units in the complex (41 units instead of 70). One mistake replaced by another...

391 Millcraft should be on Irwin Miller - I have corrected. 995&997 North River are OK - the city mistakenly lists them as being on River Rd (the old name of the street).

Je pense qu'il y a eu un malentendu ici. Après avoir reçu votre premier message, j'ai pensé que je communiquais que je fusionnerais les frontières parallèles. Je pensais que tu faisais aussi ça. Au lieu de cela, je vois que vous avez réarrangé les frontières pour qu'elles ne soient plus parallèles, ce qui est une tâche beaucoup plus difficile. Ma fusion des frontières a effacé votre travail, malheureusement. Je m'excuse.

J'ai dit que je corrigerais le problème de la frontière parrallèle, et je l'ai fait. Je ne suis pas sûr de ce que vous voulez dire en effaçant votre travail - pourriez-vous clarifier?

La plupart de ces erreurs sont attribuables au fait que j'ai recréé la frontière entre le Canada et les États-Unis, dans le but de limiter le nombre d'éléments dans la relation entre le Canada. Ma bordure recréée croise la bordure actuelle. Je vais réparer ça.

Yes, the addresses should be 35 to 41. I have corrected this.

Shopping mall units seem to be little used, and hard to find. addr:unit seems appropriate when they do exist
I don't think it makes there is a big difference between putting the qualifiers in addr:unit or addr:housenumber, although consistency is good.

Hi Matthew,
That makes sense. From what I can see, the city seems to use "qualifier" for letters, and "unitid" for numbers (a few rare units have both).
I was somehow unaware of the Meetup this Friday (Meetup stopped emailing me for some reason). Thanks for the reminder - I will attend.

Hi Matthew,
I notice that you've been moving unit numbers into the main address - e.g. replacing addr:unit="A" and addr:housenumber="4" with addr:housenumber="4 A" (for 4 A Crystal Beach Drive). I'm not sure what this is based on - the city describes "A" as a "Unit ID", and, for most purposes, keeping the address and unit number separate should make further processing easier. The Mapnik rendering shows addr:housenumber="4" and addr:unit="A" as 4 A, although JOSM annoyingly refuses to display the unit number.

Is there something that I'm missing?

The City of Ottawa addressing data doesn't have unit numbers for buildings in Accora Village, but they are visible on the ground.

Yep, Acceptance Place is correct. I was confused by the name change at the intersection of Summergaze Street. I have made the correction.

I don't think the city is wrong - its classification system is just different from that of OSM. The city has three categories for road status ("comwork", "open", and "operational") while OSM has two (highway=construction and highway=*) with the city's middle category roughly split between OSM's two categories.

I think waiting until the road is "operational" is probably the way to go, in the absence of a survey/other evidence. Better to err on the side of not including roads, rather than including non-existent roads. A lot of "open" roads seem to be boundary cases; they exist at their final alignment, but they aren't yet paved, and they have the feel of being construction sites. Someone directed to take them by routing software may well be unhappy.