Hi Matt,
Apologies for the brevity of my earlier message. I saw your edits coming in but didn't have time just then for more constructive criticism. Thanks Jarek for jumping in to fill that gap!

One way I'd suggest thinking about the namelessness here is that these are service roads, and most service roads actually don't have names. Private or semi-private driveways for example very rarely would be named. I wouldn't want to see way/232723249 for example called "No Frills Driveway" or something like that. Where would it stop? Would the parking aisles have names too? "Easternmost North-South No Frills Parking Aisle" etc

Also, from the perspective of someone potentially using these names/descriptions to help navigate, I would think these would create confusion if anything. There's no indication of these names in physical reality, so if you were expecting that you might think you were in the wrong place. Better to have a direction like "turn left onto the unnamed alley" as an unnamed alley is what you would actually see.

Definitely not writing on behalf of the City by the way; the City has no say over what's right for OSM. Nor does Google Maps or any else for that matter.

Here's a good rundown of how to use the "name" tag: osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
It appears there's actually a tag to indicate namelessness too noname=yes which should probably be added to most of the city's alleys and might help to prevent some confusion in the future.

Best,
Nate

Please stop adding these names to alleys. These alleys do not have names. There are no signs and no one calls them by these names.

Just confirming; it looks like the conditional was from before the King Corridor rules, so would have been replaced by those.

I agree; I probably shouldn't have deleted that node, and I'm pretty sure I ended up keeping most other stops / platform areas (contra public_transport=stop_position's which I did consistently remove) in later edits.

They'll mostly be served by the bus replacements, so can be converted into bus stops while maintaining the history. In other cases, they'll probably still be marked by shelters or other infrastructure, even if unused and can use your proposed tagging.

I'll have a try at resurrecting that later this evening, if you don't beat me to it.

I say go for it! Especially if you have some actual familiarity with the street / area.

Most parts of Toronto could really use a lot more local attention. I know a ton of data was brought in by andrewpmk and others ages ago and much of it hasn't received too much tending since then. Lots of stuff is outdated or was imported and never fully verified against local knowledge.

Hmmm. I just took a look at the change history, and I don't think I was the one that added that tag. It looks like it was added ~8 years ago by andrewpmk.

way/4663240/history

You may well be right; while not a decent place to ride a bike, you could presumably enter/exit at Transit Road before it becomes an expressway.

I've reverted this in changeset #129942938, restoring the mall's mostly demolished state. I think you may have traced it back in from outdated imagery. It's well on its way to being condos now.

Thanks for fixing this!

Do you have a source for the name "Anita's Field? I live right next to this and have never heard this name.

Apologies for stepping on any toes. My impression was that the regional municipality was going as "Halifax" and that the previous city boundary was now defunct as an administrative boundary, but kept around perhaps as a statistical unit, similar to Old Toronto: relation/2989349

Halifax.ca seems to indicate that this is the case, as does the English Wikipedia page for "Halifax, Nova Scotia": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax,_Nova_Scotia

A search for "Halifax" in Nominatim currently returns the historical city boundary, not the current amalgamated boundary. Is that the desired outcome?

There's no place called "Halifax"?
Wikipedia and Wikidata disagree. I'm sure it has a longer official name, but do people actually not just call it "Halifax"?

I've reverted this changeset in changeset/114540378. I'm not sure what all changes were attempted here, but it left both India and Pakistan border relations in an invalid state. There was an open gap in their shared border. I'm not familiar enough with the region to assess the the quality of other edits so I thought it was safest to revert rather than manually bridging the gap myself.

See also note: note/2805986

I reverted this changeset because it broke the city's boundary relation.

Hannes,
Re-reading my messages, let me say I'm sorry if my tone was overly hostile. I appreciate that you and many others are contributing in good faith to a project that we all care about. I just feel that Toronto in particular has a real issue with editors racing toward "completeness" without taking the time to tend to or improve (or sometimes even acknowledge) the data that's already here. Perhaps I'm overstating the problem, and perhaps some of my frustration is attributable in particular to certain low quality imports done in pursuit of "completeness". In any event, I agree that the landuses in question largely overlapped with the areas in the real world they were meant to represent. My issue is with the spatial accuracy of the data. In areas with a good deal of spatially fine-grained mapping (sidewalks, two-way streetcar tracks, bus shelters mapped as areas, etc) I think it is inappropriate and indeed counter-productive to drop in low-resolution landuse data that overlaps these features haphazardly. It causes validation errors, gets in the way of other high-accuracy editing, and IMO generally sets a low bar for new editors in the area.

I know that's not what you saw yourself as doing and at this point it's hard to say. The path forward in any case is to keep working to make it all better.

I believe it is better to take the time to do it right the first time, rather than relying on the efforts of others who did not volunteer to clean up low-quality data hastily added to their neighborhood. I'd much rather have some good data with gaps than comprehensive junk.

Whenever I stumble across random highly-detailed, well-tagged data in the middle of nowhere, I wonder "who did that?" Almost inevitably, it is Minh.

There are a few people in Ottawa that can be pretty aggressive with their edits, IMO. Let's hope they reach out like you did before interpreting the intention or validity of people's good faith edits :-)

I guess in the meantime, perhaps I ought to include some more justification in my changeset comments to try and head this off.

I used to think so as well, but I think the wiki actually makes a pretty good case for it: addr=*

In this case it's useful for my needs as a data consumer because I'm looking at embassies across many countries and it's not obvious what level the "city" is in each case. Australia for example has a very different way of breaking up what we might call "Canberra" into fragmented administrative units.

If this building really is part of the larger embassy then we should probably join it to the others with a relation and specify its particular role if any