BTW, in the process this caused a footway to improperly cross Cobble Hill Road in an odd fashion, which should have been fixed when validating before uploading the changeset. This is what alerted me to the poor alignment

This changeset appears to have used unadjusted Bing imagery, so features were shifted about 15 metres away from their proper position. Default Bing alignment is pretty bad in this area (as can be seen when comparing with Geobase Roads), so it needs to be properly aligned before using. I'm going to revert this changeset to move objects back to where they should be

This changeset destroyed on-site mapping and replaced it with old road configurations based on outdated imagery, so I've reverted it

This changeset destroyed my mapping of the realigned road at the intersection of Central Saanich and Central Saanich Cross, and replaced it with the previous configuration based on old imagery. Please try to be more careful that you don't rely solely on imagery which is often out of date. By comparing my edits from March 2016 with the date of the imagery (pre-2015), it should have been a good indicator that the data was newer than the imagery and likely more correct. I'm going to revert this changeset to restore the correct configuration.

Neither of these turn restrictions exist in reality, like many other similar ones that were added recently. What is the source being used that indicates these right turns are illegal? Routers should prefer the link roads, but it's completely legal to turn right in these situations unless otherwise posted (which it isn't here).

Hi Frohl,
This changeset shifted a number of objects significantly away from their actual position, so I'm going to undo (revert) it. Please keep in mind that background imagery needs to be properly aligned before using it, and the Bing imagery is very mis-aligned by default on southern Vancouver Island. The Mapbox satellite imagery is much better and can be used to help align the Bing imagery. Feel free to send me a message if you have any questions.

Hi NitsuaBaron,
This changeset shifted many of the features in this area pretty significantly to the south and away from their actual position. I expect this was unintentional and the result of an inadvertent move, so I'm going to undo (revert) this changeset to restore objects to their previous position.
Andrew

Hi Kelly,
It would be appreciated if you could put the bus stop number in the "ref" tag rather than "name". "ref" is the most appropriate tag for that number. Thanks! Andrew

This changeset deleted some carefully surveyed new roads and replaced them with some service roads based on old and out-of-date imagery and left some roads disconnected. Why was this done? The "source" seems to imply that this somehow improved the map, but all I can see is destructive armchair editing. Please take more care in the future before wiping out the work of other contributors. This changeset doesn't add any correct data and destroyed some, so I'm going to revert it in its entirety.

Hi VP,
Whether it renders or not is secondary to having the data be as accurate as possible. As tagged before, it was indicated as an active nature reserve, which contradicts the proposed status that implies that it doesn't yet exist. Until the park is officially dedicated, there's really nothing that needs to be shown on any map yet. If you have a license-compatible source that shows the area is a park reserve with a different name, I'd support changing it back to leisure=nature_reserve with that name.
Andrew

Hi, sorry for not responding sooner. This edit was one of several by this user that I reverted. None of them had any seemingly-legitimate changes in them. All they consisted of was some random moving of a bunch of nodes that meant roads and footways resembled a plate of spaghetti, and a few rectangular buildings were made circular. I used Achavi to look for any possibly-useful changes, but couldn't see any. To me, it was clearly someone just messing around.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll review all the objects that were created during that import to look for any others that may have been mistagged.

In the future, if you identify something wrong with a changeset, it is much more helpful to describe what you feel is wrong rather than simply describe it as garbage and insult the contributor.

You've linked to one object from this changeset, but you haven't given any indication of why it's "garbage". Can you please provide more detail?