This road does not have a name. In the StatsCan dataset, it's marked as Bear Mountain Parkway, so that definitely isn't where you got the name.

There is no such road in the StatsCan dataset. Google Maps does have a Squirrel Lane in this location, but that's the only place this road exists. There's no such road on-the-ground, nor in any reliable dataset.

This is not the location of Flute Lane, neither on-the-ground nor in the Stats Can dataset. Flute Lane was already mapped slightly to the north. You've mapped Flute Lane in roughly the spot Google Maps has it, which is wrong and a good indication that you copied from Google.

Thanks for clarifying. The overall TGT relation (relation/10038690) already specifies that it's both a hiking and bicycle route, so it could be that the waymarkedtrails.org site just doesn't process that correctly.

One thing I noticed is that most of the relations you've added on Vancouver Island almost exactly duplicate the route relations for the various regional trails (e.g. Sooke Hills Wilderness Trail). A better solution might be to include those relations as sub-relations of a parent one. At the very least, a new hiking-specific route relation should probably mirror the existing bicycle one (relation/13256756) as closely as possible, rather than break the hiking one up into various artificially-named relations.

There likely is some room for improvement with the relations for TGT. However, things got a bit messy a while back when someone else made some large-scale changes to the TGT mapping, so I think this would need to be discussed with the Canadian OSM community first. Now that things have settled down a bit, we might all be able to come to an agreement on a better way to handle things.

I see you're adding relations for various sections of The Great Trail around here. The trail had already been mapped, so these new relations seem to duplicate what was already there. Can you explain what these new relations are intended to add?

The brick area isn't a pedestrianized road, but rather just a large footway area. highway=footway with area=yes would make more sense here.

Also, don't forget to align the background imagery. For the current high-quality Bing imagery in the CRD, the offset is 2.09,-0.6

This isn't the city hall node, but rather the place=town node for Esquimalt. The name should be changed back to just "Esquimalt".

You accidentally changed all of Haro Strait into a beach, so I've reverted that. I'm not sure where the actual South Beach is, so you'll have to make that edit.

This trail doesn't have an official name. Most of the sites like the unauthoritative one you referenced likely got the name from the one that Google Maps artificially added in their data, which is now getting perpetuated as "fact". If people are going to keep adding this "name", I guess I'll just have to stop fighting it.

From what I can see, the license on the marineregions.org data is incompatible with the OSM license because they use CC-BY. There would need to be an explicit waiver in place. Do you know if that has already been done in the past for this data source?
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC_BY

Also, the new data seems to conflict between Graham Island and Prince of Wales Island, where the territorial waters now overlap and create a "disputed" area. Most of the sources I'm seeing show a straight-line boundary like the previous version of the data, not the rounded one introduced by this edit. It might be a good idea to revert that part until more consistent sources can be found.

First, "all" of what? Your changeset comment doesn't tell us what you were doing here, or explain why it modified objects across all of Canada at once.

Second, you seem to have tried to add some bilingualism to a few pieces of roads scattered across Canada. Not only is this not the way we handle the English and French names of roads, this changeset only modified the name on small pieces of the roads without changing the rest of it (e.g. a 400m portion of the 10.5 km-long dual-carriageway John Laurie Boulevard in Calgary).

Can you explain more about what you were trying to do?

I've reverted this changeset to restore the previous tags. This is an area where vehicles can drive in many directions not restricted by lanes, which is exactly what highway=* + area=yes is intended to represent. This isn't just the outline of a highway. See:
area:highway=*?uselang=en#Differentiation_area:highway_vs._area.3Dyes_on_a_highway

This changeset removed the cut-outs for the TCH and E&N Railway right-of-ways, making those now part of the Oyster Bay 12 area (relation/2098476). What was the source for the change of jurisdiction? AFAIK, those have not been turned over to the local First Nations and should still be excluded from the relation.

Hi Jeremy,
Clare Street is signed as a "shared road" (this article shows the sign: http://tomhawthorn.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-to-be-good-neighbour.html). This matches the OSM definition of "living street". Here's the OSM Wiki article on that tag: highway=living_street. We don't have many of these around Greater Victoria, but I have seen this one and one out in Colwood.

I'm not sure about Brighton, though. I'm skeptical that just that one section of it was signed as "shared road", so an on-the-ground survey might be needed to confirm how much of it (if any) should be tagged as living street.

Hi Dima179,
I'm confused why you think that. The rest of the E&N/SVI is tagged as usage=main, so this portion at the one end shouldn't be any different. The entire line is over 200 km long and is definitely a main line (with a branch to Port Alberni).

I noticed in this changeset (as well as 112163892), you changed a Thrifty Foods location to Sobeys. While Sobeys bought the chain in 2007, the stores have remained branded as Thrifty Foods. It's a very longstanding local brand, so I'm pretty sure there would be quite a bit of media coverage if the stores were being rebranded, but I can't find anything. Are you sure these are now Sobeys? I can swing by one of these when I'm out tomorrow, but I'm almost certain these are still Thrifty Foods.

Highway 4 officially starts at the 19 interchange, and this is supported by the signage, so it shouldn't be extended as far as the Rupert Road roundabout.

The section of road between Rupert Road and Highway 19 is officially named "Memorial Avenue", though the signage seems to be inadequate.

The "Alberni Highway" name is carried by Highway 4A, so only the part of Highway 4 west of the 4/4A intersection (Coombs Junction) should carry this name. The section from Coombs Junction to Highway 19 may actually be "Memorial Avenue" officially based on some sources, but "Route 4" signage at the EB exit 60 intersection contradicts this, so I've given it the generic name "Highway 4" to match other highways in BC.

Hi Computron,
I noticed a few of the objects you moved in this changeset are now no longer aligned with the CRD 2019 imagery (which I used to map many of these objects initially), and I'm wondering if you might have an offset in place for that imagery layer in JOSM. By comparing the CRD imagery to the known coordinates of high-accuracy geodetic benchmarks, it's already very well aligned across Victoria, so an additional offset isn't required. An alternative is the Bing imagery, which was recently updated with August 2020 data and is very good quality. For Bing, I found that an offset of 2.09; -0.60 aligns it with both benchmarks and the CRD 2019 imagery across the region.

Happy mapping!
Andrew

Something can be both a building and attraction, and Butterfly Gardens definitely qualifies for this. I've restored the tourism=attraction tag (it had already been tagged as building=yes when I mapped it in 2012).

I thought this had only recently been approved and that nothing had been built yet. The Sooke site (https://sooke.ca/district-services/departments/parks-and-greenspaces/multi-use-sports-box/) says site prep may just be starting now. Is this wrong and the park is already complete? If nothing has been built yet, at best this should be mapped as a construction site. If they haven't even started site prep, then it shouldn't be on the map at all.