Reverting this changeset for similar reasons as to 161918246 and 161918226, but also the fact you've used highway=pedestrian here. highway=pedestrian has a very specific and limited (at least in Calgary) definition. Almost all use cases should be highway=footway (a highway=cycleway existed underneath which is also valid given it was tagged with foot=designated). You can read the info for each on the wiki: highway=footway and highway=footway
As far as I know the only actual valid use of highway=pedestrian in Calgary is on Stephen Avenue.

Reverting this one as well. See notes on 161918211 changeset/161918211 for why

I've also reverted this changeset for similar reasons as to those in 161918246 and 161918226, but also the fact you've placed a highway=motorway here.

A highway=motorway has a very specific, very limited definition. You can read the specific definition on the wiki page (highway=motorway), however to sum it up, a highway=motorway is a protected-access high speed, non-signalized road. I've been here before and I know this section of Calgary does not meet that definition. The only roads in Calgary that do meet that definition are Deerfoot, Stoney, small parts of 16 Ave, sections of Glenmore, and Crowchild.

I've reverted this changeset as well. See my comments on 161918246 for a reason of why
changeset/161918246

Partly reverts changesets 161918045, 161917584, and 161917039

Fully reverts changesets 161918364 161918299 161918246 161918226 161918211 161918151 161918193 161918151 161918135 161918011 161917980 161917260 161917785 161917855 161918815 161918646 161918727 161918762 161918783 161918532 161918500 161918462 161918348 161918241 161918203 161918192 161918035 161917817

It appears this changeset adds a duplicate road on top of another already existing one. This isn't something that should be done, any modifications to a road network should update existing data or add new data only if it doesn't exist. Here, you've added new data when it already exists.
If you're curious for more information, you can check out the OSM wiki page for this general guideline at osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

I've reverted this changeset as well.

Similar to the comment I just recently added on your RBC Bank change, this cafe already "exists" as node/725890300 node/725890300. However, this cafe closed recently - https://dailyhive.com/calgary/vendome-closing-calgary and its website states the same. As such, I've reverted this changeset as well and deleted the existing node.

Hi there and welcome to OSM :)

I noticed this changeset adds a RBC bank node. However, this specific bank branch already exists in OSM! It's node/9576579212 node/9576579212, thus this node is redundant and can be deleted. I've reverted this changeset for you.

Hi there, I was also wondering what your data source for this data was. It seems rather unlikely that all the house owners here would allow you to measure their home and garage heights, so I'm wondering if you pulled from a copyrighted source possibly? All I'm looking for is just a link to a data source or an explanation. Thanks!

Hi there and welcome to OSM! I was poking around recent changesets in the Calgary area and came across this one that looks slightly suspicious.

Can I ask why you removed the amenity=social_facility tagging from way/1350752898? Without that tagging, the subsequent social_facility=outreach tag is also useless. It seems like you didn't remove the name or phone number either, so I'm wondering if it was merely an accidental deletion?

Hi there, welcome to OSM :)

I figured I'd just let you know that for this changeset it seems like you moved the amenity=social facility for this nursing home into a node. That's perfectly valid, however if you go take a peek at the OSM wiki for amenity=social_facility (amenity=social_facility), you can note the following:
> Draw an area area for the campus of the facility, comprising buildings and outdoor areas.
> If there are no outdoor areas, the tags are applied to the building.
Here it's perfectly fine to keep the tagging on the building.

Not a major problem, but something I thought I'd let you know nonetheless :)

Hi there! I was poking through recent changesets in the Calgary area and stumbled upon this one. It seems you're new to OSM, so first off, welcome.

You've added highway=motorway objects on top of already existing highway=tertiary here. There are two major problems with this.
First, a highway=motorway has a very specific definition, and it is not met here. You can read the specific definition on the wiki page (highway=motorway), however to sum it up, a highway=motorway is a protected-access high speed, non-signalized road. I've been here before and I know this section of Calgary does not meet that definition. The only roads in Calgary that do meet that definition are Deerfoot, Stoney, small parts of 16 Ave, sections of Glenmore, and Crowchild.
Second, you should follow the rule of "One feature, one OSM element": osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
> An OSM element should represent a single on-the-ground feature once and only once.
Here, you've duplicated roads with the highway=motorway and highway=pedestrian.

Speaking of the highway=pedestrian, this tagging has limited application. Almost all use cases should be highway=footway. You can, once again, read the info for each on the wiki: highway=footway and highway=footway
As far as I know the only actual use of highway=pedestrian in Calgary is on Stephen Avenue.
On top of that, as mentioned above, you've duplicated the highway=pedestrian with the highway=footway that was there before. As stated before, you shouldn't be doing that.

I currently don't have the time to revert this changeset but unless someone else gets around to it before me I'll do it at some point later.

Whoops I forgot to change the changeset description here: should be "Add fixme to 10 noting wrong GTFS data vs what's on the ground"

Ditto for more dupes (4882, 4886, 5095, 5094, 5240)

Ditto for duplicate stops (8048)

Ditto with duplicate stops. They're right next to each other and should be pretty easy to fix if you're pulling in existing map data first. (5029, 7487, 7479, 6638)

Didn't bother counting the exact duplicates here, but definitely a few here - see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1UmP for an index of all dupes

Ditto with duplicate stops, refs 7532, 7536, 7542, and 6880 in this set (all in the north)

Hi there again, I'm noticing a lot of duplicate stop refs in your changesets again. This one has 6197 (EB Berkshire BV @ Beddington BV NW) duplicated. Can you please be sure to take care when you're adding new stops that you don't duplicate them?

Hi there I was poking through this changeset and noticed there's some bus stops with duplicate refs, most notably 7341. If you're doing some sort of import can you make sure you're not importing duplicates, and preferring locations that already exist instead of moving them? Thanks :)