Awesome. Thanks for your work!

Hi nyanpsyche,

I wouldn't add two amenity=fire_station areas, instead I would tag the building itself with building=fire_station while still tagging the area as amenity=fire_station. Thoughts?

Joel

Hello,
It is not clear what you are trying to accomplish by deleting road crossings. The crossings are important information that reflect the ground truth (osm.wiki/Ground_truth) of this bicycle path.

Thank you,
Joel

Hi pnorman, can you help me understand how these don't meet the living street definition? They appear to be living streets to me: low speeds and shared space between pedestrians and cars.

Thanks,
Joel

I appreciate all your POI additions. Keep it up!

👍

I would improve this a bit by making the wooded area a multi polygon and adding the pond as an inner way.

Hi Omnific, I noticed you changed the United Rentals area to include only the building. Do you think this is better? For an industrial rental facility like this, I think including the outdoor lot that holds much of the equipment would be more accurate. I think it's more similar to a car dealership where we would include the entire premises. Thoughts?

Hello, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just a heads up that the bicycle=yes tag is used to indicate where cycling is legal bicycle=yes. These crossings, unfortunately, are not legal for cycling - see https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section183

Great work in the Port Moody area and welcome to OSM! In this changeset, I noticed you split off the turn lane from Murray to Moody early [way/812681082](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/812681082). The general guideline for roadways is that they should only be split if there is a physical barrier between the lanes.

Thanks,
Joel

Does this have normal operating hours now or is it just open for special events? I think it would be worth tagging opening_hours="special events"

Thanks for adding this!

I will have to come back to this to clean it up further

Heads up that the houses you added no longer exist. I removed them in changeset/133573934

Oh I see you were the initiator of that thead, haha. I assume you are well familiar with the discussion then. (I am only aware of the discussion, not familiar the conclusion of the discussion)

I'm not sure this change to the name is appropriate. See the talk-ca mailing list discussion from a few months ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-December/thread.html

Hello, karaga, can you help me understand why you made this change?

Thanks,
Joel

Hello, can you help me understand the difference between building=stadium and building=grandstand? This looks more like a grandstand than a stadium to me.

Thanks

Just FYI, the tower you added (node/10050527076) is a duplicate of another (node/1285280395). I have merged the two changeset/133536221

Hello, you made a duplicate of the Iskut River. Can you review this?

Hi ocwl,

Again, I appreciate the work you are doing. I just want to give you a heads up that you are undoing other user's work.

> They were already appearing on opencyclemap.com as bicycle crossings
From what I see, opencyclemap only shows bicycle routes, not bicycle crossings or cycleways.

> I don't care if it is marked as a foot or gravel path in OSM
You may not care but other users do. This is not your map but everyone's map so please respect that we should strive to represent the real world as accurately as possible.

> Just go change it yourself
I tagged these as pedestrian crossings prior to your edits. It is unreasonable to expect me to go back and fix your work, especially when I had already done so.

> please stop harassing me with your insistence for perfection
I am sorry you see this as harassment, it is definitely not my intention. As I noted earlier, I am not striving for perfection, just trying to prevent you from removing data from the map.

Thanks,
Joel