No, that's wrong. bicycle=yes is a funny tag, because it's about the legal status of bikes, not about anything on the ground.

We've had mappers adding this tag simply to get a nice thick blue line on the cycle map, *because* theoretically bikes are allowed on a mountain climb, though totally illogical.

But in this park, bikes aren't allowed on most trails, and certainly not this peak.

JOSM has a "simplify" feature, Shift+Y I think, to reduce the number of nodes. I've been gradually touching up over-noded and noisy (raw GPS) mountain routes as I see them, but have been wilfully neglecting the parks for the most part.

Hi.

Why did you delete the wood polygon? There's now big rectangular hole in the forest.

Are you a single mapper that uses different user names to add scattered industrial areas - and delete forests when they get in the way - or are you a group of mappers with the same style of editing?

Hi.

Why did you delete the wood polygon? There's now big rectangular hole in the forest.

Are you a single mapper that uses different user names to add scattered industrial areas - and delete forests when they get in the way - or are you a group of mappers with the same style of editing?

Hi MC. Might I suggest "residential" for towns such as Montrose, rather than grassland?

Okay, thanks. When I tackled those missing islands, I didn't realize I'd bitten off more than I could comfortably chew. :)

I have a suspicion that the cycle map *never* picks up changes to coastlines...

PS, I'll agree that these areas would benefit from more descriptive names than (eg) "SK004". But I wasn't able to find more suitable official names from the source, and for me to make up a truly useful name (eg "SK004. Caribou Protection area - no snowmobiles") for each would require breaking some rules for the Name tag.

Hi PierZen.

I've noticed this multipolygon overlaps the much larger estuary polygon that continues farther east, and this causes islands to disappear from the Cycle Map, and maybe others. EG, L'Isle-aux-Coudres.

I've just fixed the exact same problem to the west of here, the big island beside Quebec City (as pointed out in the forum), by carefully trimming back the largest polygon to avoid overlapping members.

Here, I noticed the same problem. My first temptation was to simply remove this smaller polygon (with two "ii" misspellings BTW), but it has a long history, and you've edited it recently. So I'd like to leave this in your capable hands instead. Perhaps you can trim back the larger polygon if you wish to keep this one separate and distinct.

Thank you,
VP from out west.

This is in response to a bug report in the Canada forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=756557

Thanks, heh.

I think I'm done here now. Not perfect, but better than the CanVec pseudo-randomness (pre-2013 flood) that was no help whatsoever on a recent canoe trip. Hopefully it'll help future paddlers make the right quick decisions and avoid that massive log jam. :)

I removed the node. As a "city", it really stood out at very low zooms...

Hi.
1. "RM North Qu'Appelle" is an odd name for a city, and
2. Imagery shows no city there, nothing whatsoever.
What's this all about?

Thanks for fixing this. Un-twinning Mt. Rhondda and closing the gap has indeed made it render as a park again.

Happy mapping,
VP

Yoho Park doesn't render, possibly because the polygon isn't closed at the northern end; there are two instances of Mt. Rhondda very close to each other with no boundary connection there.

The longer that "residential road" sits there, the more offline maps (eg OAM for the next few months) and routing engines it ends up in.

Given your recent mapping activity elsewhere, I figured you'd forgotten about this.

Hi badenk.

Somehow we have a residential road crossing mountains and glaciers. Could you check? Thanks.

This is getting repetitive.

Hi atomwaffen.

Please do NOT delete forest polygons simply because they don't meet your standards for accuracy, unless you're willing to supply a better replacement.

I've rebuilt the polygon you deleted. Please don't delete anything further.

The local specialist for boundaries (no, not me) has already fixed up the relation, presumably for the better.

Hi again. Thanks for understanding with your ongoing work, which looks good.

(There are minor issues with forest overlap, trees in water for example, but I can easily make a sweep to fix those up when it looks like you're done in the area.)

Cheers,
VP

Hi. Yes, if you've ever tried to edit a massive CanVec polygon, or compared their landuse or trail data with reality, you might have an idea why I'm down on CanVec.

But these simple big polygons are ones *I* added, to "give the forest a start", and to discourage CanVec from coming in. Later, mappers like you or me can add detail to the forest.

If some of my forest polygons are too large, and have triggered the JOSM validator, my apologies. I can shrink them. But those big forests *do* appear to be accepted as valid by every renderer I've seen.

I've only deleted a CanVec mega-polygon once, I think, and I immediately hand-added a replacement. Perhaps nobody noticed. :)

I need to be off the internet now for a few days. Happy mapping,
VP

Once again, please STOP deleting forest polygons.