(Um, assuming those lakes don't actually have trees in them, of course. Haven't checked the imagery...)

Hello fellow cacher, Ministik walker, and now OSM mapper. Welcome to OSM!

Psst, those lakes have trees in them. You'll need to find the forest relation, and add the lakes as "inner" members of the relation; that makes them holes in the forest, thus removing the trees. (I don't know the process in iD, otherwise I'd explain it.)

Or, I can fix that if you like; let me know.

Happy mapping, and ping me if you have any questions. Cheers, VP.

Glad to help. :)

Yeah, if you figure to stay with OSM a while, I can't recommend JOSM highly enough. Takes a while to learn, but it's SO powerful in many ways. I should've taken the plunge much sooner.

In this case, the "Reverter" plugin did the trick. With it installed, there's a Revert Changeset menu item under the Data menu. I've also gotten fond of the "Fast Draw" plugin for smoothly tracing forest- and lake edges. Wish I'd discovered *that* much sooner.

Happy mapping,
VP

Done, easy in JOSM. Shall I also revert 81791082 which is "Attempting to revert..."? If that was working on the same objects, I probably should. Yes?

Hi. There's a "revert" tool that can undo entire changesets. I don't know if it's available for the iD editor.

Would you like me to revert this?

PS, sorry for "piling on", but I needed to point out the attribution of what was deleted.

I agree with that comment, but (to support my own work) haven't been able to find that actually documented anywhere, eg the wiki. But common sense says, yes, only name the waterway, not also the surrounding water.

My two bits. :)

NEVER delete hand-edited work (eg attributed to Bing imagery, meaning hand-tracing), as evidenced by a couple of deletions I checked below, only to replace with old and inaccurate CanVec data. This is a serious insult to the original mapper and their hard work

Congrats!

You might be hooked. :)

Hi. There are still two, and the one farther south (just inside the forest) looks correct in satellite view. The (properly capitalized) name Merlin Meadows SK18 would seem to be most appropriate. Thank you.

Hi palimpadum.

I just noticed some islets you added to Murtle Lake weren't appearing on the map. That's because they need to be mapped as "holes" in the lake, inner members of a multipolygon, with the lake perimeter as the outer. I've taken care of that here, but mention it for future reference.

place=islet doesn't really accomplish anything unless the islet has a name, in which case it affects how prominently it's shown.

Also, when adding forest roads, I'd suggest adding surface=unpaved to avoid ambiguity; some maps/routers seem to assume unclassified means paved.

Cheers, VP

That would be ... no?

Correction: there's no underground garage there (I was thinking a block north), but that doesn't change anything relevant. :)

Hi AW. If you're seeing patchy forest, that's typically from logging, "managed forest", and what appears bare in satellite view is usually freshly-planted forest; that almost always follows logging. Small trees, true, but still forest.

When mapping forest, I ignore these cutblocks, but do take care to map around naturally bare ground, eg mountains at the treeline.

Hi. The railway at node/5021029394 and another nearby is underground, below the level of the parking garage that is itself below ground level. (Source: local knowledge). Thus, level_crossing shouldn't apply, right?

Also, somebody crookedized the tracks because they're glued to a surface parking aisle.

I started to fix this myself, but realized I was messing with relations I didn't really understand, so I backed away slowly and changed nothing.

Adding to the fun, I found one of those boundary markers, there at Crowsnest Pass, wasn't even attached to the ground. A small concrete thing, the size of a bowling ball but not as round. We joked about moving it a little to make our favourite province a bit bigger, but couldn't agree which direction that meant it should go. :)

Correction: 2017, 36 years.

A little history:
1981: Line Creek Mine opened.
2020: CanVec *still* knows nothing about it, and instead shows patchy forest from at least 39 years ago.

Hi. You had a way with no tags other than the one I'd mentioned, connected to nothing, in the rough vicinity of existing boundary ways and relations. No big deal, especially since it likely never rendered on any map.

Local government sources should be considered authoritative, as they've defined the boundaries in the first place, no? This is different than mapping the natural world.

The dataset I've used from the AB gov't in the past seems accurate; various boundaries from there match up with various other boundaries from there. BC, I'm not so sure.

I'm not the local boundaries expert (we have one), so I'll leave it at that.

Happy mapping,
VP

Hi badenk.

This way, "boundary=usgs", seemed to have no purpose, so I deleted it. The boundary here is already mapped - from Canadian sources - and it appears to be accurate.

Please avoid using US sources to map Canadian boundaries. Thank you.