One problem (not the only one) i that I asked you not to rename the roads, and you did so anyway. I view this as a deliberate insult, and would appreciate an apology.

Matt,
I specifically warned you not to rename roads. Please let me do this in the future, since I have to go back and review your edits anyway.
Danny

I think we will have to agree to disagree. As usual, OSM discussion achieves nothing.

Yes I can. Some RBC signs say "RBC Financial Group" instead of just RBC, and some CIBC signs say "CIBC Banking Centre" instead of just CIBC. Restaurants also have abbreviated names (Kelsey's not Kelsey's Original Roadhouse).

What I really care about is that the same name is used everywhere, and that the name matches the id preset. For Starbucks, that preset is "Starbucks" not "Starbucks Coffee" (although Coffee is part of the signage in Canada and parts of the US).

The "Coffee" is a description, not part of the name. Good work PelleB!

I used to favour separate areas for businesses, but it becomes a real mess, and it is much more time-consuming. So I generally just add points now, unless it is easy to separate the footprints based on aerial imagery.

I think I thought the station building was some sort of church or temple. I've deleted the area - thanks for pointing this out.

I agree, most rural roads should be unclassified. I will review highway=residential to make sure they should be that, and not highway=unclassified

I agree highway=unclassified is better. I have been using that in later changesets.

If you can't find the trail, feel free to delete it. Looking at my notes from that period, I may have interpreted a bushwhack as a trail.

This is a great change. It is much better to have a different building tag for portables then for other school buildings.
Good work.

I will also wait before making further imports, at least a week, and likely longer (until consensus is reached).

To be clear, I am willing to further discuss importing - blocking me would be a severe over-reaction, and would be interpreted as a personal attack.

There was a discussion, issues were raised, the problems (to the extent that they existed at all) have been addressed. I plan to continue importing, unless a *specific* valid issue is raised. Please do not contact me again unless you have such an issue.

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