So in short, it's not abbreviation-by-mapper, it's abbreviation-by-municipality. Municipality does whatever they want.

Hi bryceco.

I'm following the example of the Edmonton wiki at osm.wiki/Canada:Alberta:Edmonton where they use NW in the examples.

And... I believe the streets are actually officially named NW, SW, etc. Checked my property tax bill; it says NW.

And... I haven't yet seen a renderer smart enough to abbreviate "North-west", so things were quite a mess visually.

Apologies if I accidentally referred to some hand-editing with that "Geobase droppings" crack. I've just changed the whole city over to the standard NW (and SW etc.) terminology, per the Edmonton OSM wiki.

Geobase had set a bad example and provided a ton of extra work...

Actually the last few changesets have covered ALL of Edmonton. I figured out how to streamline the process, so I'm aiming to finish the whole city shortly.

See XML within the ZIP (Shapefile) for simple disclaimer; no restrictions on use.

I didn't think "Kootenay-Cline PP (PNT)" would be all that meaningful to regular people. That's the name in the official source I referenced.

It's a toss-up whether it SHOULD be mapped. Roads etc. sometimes are, and there's a syntax for it. A grey area, no?

The area is in the database as "PP (PNT)", which is government-speak for Kootenay-Cline Provincial Park Reservation. I would use that name if you don't like (proposed).

Ah, I see now, the wiki page I linked mentions both types of syntax. Seems confused.

But note, that page says the "proposed" key is for "any road, railway or route", and that usage on relations is unspecified. So of course it won't render.

Hi alester.

With this change, it stop rendering on the main OSM map and others I've tried. That wasn't the intent, was it?

The wiki page at proposed=* would seem to suggest:
leisure=proposed
proposed=nature_reserve

On a quick scan, I couldn't find a wiki reference to the syntax you used.

Regards,
VP

At Mountain Park, you added a second graveyard partly overtop of an already-mapped one.

When you delete 1600+ ways in a single changeset, how can you possibly know some of those ways haven't been HAND-EDITED, and would be of higher accuracy than the decades-old government data you're replacing them with.

It looks like you've deleted a number by user Menne71, and a sampling of his changesets would be in order. Of the few I glanced at, they're unattributed, but could well have been the product of hard volunteer labour.

And I'm missing some river changesets of my own, Fiddle River / Sulphur Creek in this area.

Please stop!

You deleted way/322369794 which was attributed (via the changeset) to Mapbox Satellite. I had totally overhauled the way to match the satellite images, and removed the CanVec attribution because it was no longer based on it.

And my work lasted just a few weeks, replaced by data that appears to be decades old, if the trail data I've seen is any indication.

Hi Shawn.

Please beware of poor-quality government data, such as the unrealistic water areas near Whitehorse Creek Campground. The roads are correct (according to satellite anyway; I touched them up about the same time you did this import), but the roads now appear to have water over them.

I spend a fair bit of time fixing up bad gov't data...

Note simple "as-is" disclaimer in the .xml file within the .zip; no restrictive license for the data.

Note simple "as-is" disclaimer in the .xml file within the .zip; no restrictive license for the data.

(A year ago there WAS a restrictive license in the same place, so I didn't import anything back then. It's gone now.)

Brochure found at http://www.rubored.ca/Portals/RUBORED/timeu%20off%20highway%20area.pdf

Data released to general public under simple "as-is" conditions; see .xml file inside the zip.

Dataset now marked as available for public use, with simple "as-is" proviso.

Clarification: not ALL points are from GPS; some are approximate but hopefully "good enough for now".

Correction: source=survey, Bing