Also, I'm willing to give some leeway in discussing the TCT/TGT project in general. While I don't believe it was a "national embarrassment", it wasn't a glowing success story either. Some good did come from it by triggering the creation of a number of good trails, but it fell significantly short of the original vision. The original vision has been watered down so many times that it's almost been lost in the mists of time, but it was originally going to be a pair of parallel trails for non-motorized use and separated from roadways by enough distance to mask traffic noise and reduce the chance of collisions. When I did some research not long after it was announced to be "completed", 65-80% of it was on road shoulders or water routes, so it isn't even close to the original vision. The stretch of the TCT/TGT where the 1985 cycling tragedy occurred west of Calgary (the original inspiration for the project) was designated as using the highway shoulder and missed the point in a most distressing fashion. As it stands today, I don't think those currently involved with the TCT/TGT even know what it is themselves or what their goal is/was, so there's no point using their input to guide our decisions here.

If you don't mind, I'd like to join this discussion to make a few suggestions:

1. I wasn't aware that some significant changes were already being made to the existing relations, and I bet other Canadian contributors weren't either. There clearly needs to be wider discussion on how to handle the TCT/TGT in OSM. This should be handled through the talk-ca mailing list.

2. In a separate talk-ca discussion, the matter of these proposed routes should be discussed with the wider Canadian community. Like keithonearth, I'm not sure they should be in OSM at this time, but am willing to participate in a discussion where my mind could be changed.

3. I think Sam should provide full disclosure regarding his background with OSM. Namely, that he:
-had previously contributed under a different account years ago (acrosscanadatrails)
-allowed his far-reaching edits to be redacted at the time of the license change, leaving behind a lot of broken data and burning bridges
-had previously created unofficial cycle routes in the OSM database in the Victoria area (and possibly other areas), apparently in support of an intended book

For now, all editing of the TCT/TGT and the proposed routes should stop until wider consensus is achieved, and then a coordinated effort can be undertaken to make sure the OSM data makes sense.

I agree with the others. Even if they don't have any tags, an intermediate node is assumed to mean that the way is known to pass through that point (look at the nodes on any road). Unless you know (or it's a reasonable assumption) that a way passes through a point, you shouldn't add a node there. Clearing *potential* errors from a validator is not a valid reason for adding arbitrary nodes.

RU (Google Translate):
Я согласен с остальными. Даже если они не имеют каких-либо тегов, предполагается, что промежуточный узел означает, что путь, как известно, проходит через эту точку (посмотрите на узлы на любой дороге). Если вы не знаете (или это разумное предположение), что путь проходит через точку, вам не следует добавлять туда узел. Удаление *потенциальных* ошибок из валидатора не является веской причиной для добавления произвольных узлов.

No problem. I was just wondering why there was an emergency phone in the middle of a tennis court. :D

fixme is a free-form text tag that allows contributors to communicate with other contributors. There's no point in restricting it to a list of possible values, because it can be used for a massive number of reasons. The wiki article for the tag gives a few examples, but those shouldn't be taken as a restrictive list of possible values.

What was your source for these locations? Based on my sources, there aren't phones at any of these locations.

In addition to this being an undiscussed mass edit, I don't understand what benefit is supposed to come from this change. Some information has been lost (e.g. "Does the road continue here?" changed to "continue?"), and some non-English values have been changed to English (e.g. "Fortsetzung?"). I think this changeset should be reverted and you need to make your case for why you think it's a good idea to normalize these notes.

Are you sure the old pathway is now designated for bikes as well? I thought it would be staying as pedestrian-only and the new one closer to Dallas Road (not yet mapped) would be for cyclists.

A proposed bike route probably shouldn't be on the map, and definitely not tagged as an active route. It might be best to wait until the route officially opens and signage goes up.

Can you clarify what these names are? They seem unlikely to be names for these properties. They look more like descriptive labels, which isn't what the "name" tag is meant to be used for.

The roads within these rest areas are unnamed access roads, so I've removed the names from these two and the Cobble Hill one to the north.

A map note (note/2184170) pointed out that this is an unlikely location for this business. Anyone looking at the map would be able to tell that an ink shop wouldn't be inside a fire hall. Again, it's clear that you've requested coordinates from the business and they've just given you what they have on Google, which is incorrect and also violates the OpenStreetMap licensing. You need to find another and more reliable way to get coordinates from these businesses, as well as apply some basic data verification when the coordinates you're given are suspect (like if they're in a fire hall). Blindly entering data provided to you and waving your hands saying "Well, that's what they gave us" isn't good enough. I've seen other edits from your colleagues at GetintheLoop (Alecia, Allison, etc.) that aren't of the greatest quality either, so please make sure you all get on the same page and ensure you're putting sufficient effort into these edits.

I've moved this node to the correct location, which is the next address to the southwest (where the address node for 4404 Cowichan Lake Road was already located, which also should have indicated to you that something wasn't right).

Okay, maybe you didn't use Google yourself, but the information provided to you was clearly taken from Google due to that obvious typo in the address. If you're working for some kind of marketing company, you should advise your clients that they can't copy what they have on Google and get you to add it to OSM, because that violates the license compatibility and their business may just get removed. Based on what I've been seeing with a number of your changesets, this seems to be happening quite a bit, so you should probably compare the provided information with Google to see if the client has copied information from there.

Also, if you are entering data on behalf of someone else, you should say so in your changeset description and/or update your profile to say that you're working for a company that's entering data on behalf of clients. Otherwise, you're the one solely responsible for the data you enter, along with any suspicion of the quality or source of the data.

One last piece of advice: before adding something because it "wasn't on map", please check first to make sure that this is true. You've uploaded a number of duplicates before, possibly because the client told you they weren't on the map when they actually were. Check around the general area first to make sure the business isn't already there in a slightly different location or with unexpected tags.

You're clearly copying information from Google, complete with typos like a street of "Trans-Canada Highway A". I've reverted this change because you've used a source that isn't allowed. Please stop doing this. If you continue to make changes using Google data, you will be reported to the Data Working Group.

The name of this house is "Shirlea". That wasn't any kind of personalization. Also, "335" isn't a name, it's the address. I've reverted this back to the way it was.

Can you clarify why you removed the island tag from Banks Island in northern Canada and replaced it with the "area=yes" tag? The island is now no longer tagged as an island.

Since this change could cause a number of issues for data consumers, I reverted the changes myself in order to minimize the chance of any negative impact. I also found that the osm.wiki/Canada_admin_level article didn't accurately reflect the situation in BC, so I updated it accordingly.

One example that I saw still hasn't been fixed:
node/1042023589
In that case, a valid ICAO code had been incorrectly tagged in the IATA field, and then subsequently deleted entirely by you. This hasn't been fixed by your latest changeset. This is the kind of thing that needs to be restored, as well as any others in a similar situation. If you aren't sure whether the code is a valid ICAO code or not, I would suggest that restoring the IATA tag as it originally was would be preferred, since the data would then at least be present and someone else can later fix it as necessary. At the very least, some placeholder tag like airport_code=* could be used in order to retain the data.

It's up to you. You can either revert all of the changes and then make the necessary corrections, or keep the data as-is and add back any data that had been removed but can be made correct.

This is a type of change that needs to be discussed more widely. The regional districts have been admin_level=6 since they were created, so changing them all to 5 will likely cause issues for data consumers. The regional districts are the equivalent of US counties or UK counties/council areas, which are also admin_level=6. If you have a good case for our regional districts to be changed to a higher admin level, it should be made in the Talk-CA mailing list so others can discuss the merits. Until there's general agreement, these should be changed back to admin_level=6.