I forgot to update the source tag on this changeset, and it should read `Esri World Imagery`

I see you're still not adding a source for these addresses. Please do so, if you have any questions please let me know.

It's worth adding the source when you upload the edits. For example you could be basing them on a survey, or on the City of Vancouver's address data. It's important not to take anything from google.

One of the reasons it's useful to add source info to the changeset, is that it allows other users to assess the accuracy of the data. This changeset had the addresses wrong for at least two buildings.

(way/357742110/history and way/357727172/history)

links to the notes:

note/475277
note/475257

I've come across it before in this area, but always old edits like this one. I suspect you are right and this is no longer an issue.

Just a head's up for you Robert, this area is administered by India. The Pakistan hashtag is very political, and wouldn't go down well in India. If you're mapping in this area again, #Kashmir is an accurate, and non-controversial hashtag.

And keep in mind that "politics" in this area involves plenty of men with guns, unlike Europe or North America.

What do other people think? Should we wait until the name enters more common usage? Or at least is publicly posted?

This changeset edited one reservoir (way/58425053) that was covered, and also not in WA or OR, but in fact in BC.
This edit seems to have assumed that any reservoir that wasn't tagged as `covered=yes` was uncovered, but this is a bad assumption, as it may just not have been tagged yet. It also contains such a large amount of ways, that it seems likely to be an automated edit. As such, I'd like to know where it was discussed. prior to being done.

I've added a note on one of the things added by this edit, a seafood shop. It seems a very unlikely location for a retail establishment.

Here's the note, requesting more info:
note/1552659

The section of 10th between Kingsway and Watson St could use some more work, as there is what looks like an off-street bike path that should open soon.

That's really interesting, thanks for the info!

I'm not aware of any abandon railway on Quebec St. Is it genuine? Why is it such a short fragment?

I posted a question to help.osm.org here: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65629/

Please feel free to explain your rational there. Additionally if there is any documentation of this convention to tag rivers as sea-coasts I'd really appreciate you providing a link.

Although I did mention the effects to rendering, my change was specifically with the goal of improving the underlying database. I tagged a riverbank as a riverbank, not for rendering reasons, but because it more effectively reflects reality.

I apologise if I've broken a UK mapping convention. I did check how other local rivers were tagged ( relation/5557215 way/3344879 ) and found the riverbanks tagged as expected, but didn't investigate beyond those those two randomly selected rivers.

I have reviewed the definition of coastline, and do not see anything about tagging tidal rivers as coastlines. Perhaps you could specifically say what it was you wanted me to take away from reading it?

This edit also removed the (meta)relation "Great Britain (6038068)" from the riverbank, because as it was tagged as coastline, it was included in this relation. Somehow suggesting that the bridges in Totnes pass over international waters.... That not right.

To say that the sea goes all the way to the weir in Totnes (way/619340695) is inaccurate, and misleading. Although yes, the tidal effect can be seen this far. I would suggest using the `waterway=riverbank` tag in combination with the `tidal=yes` tag would more accurately reflect the real situation. I'd be only too happy to add the tidal tag to the riverbank ways.

I also will point out that we are not debating the location of the mouth of the River Dart, as I have not changed that. The `waterway=river` way has been left unchanged, and I have maintained the existing location chosen to terminate this waterway.

I'm sorry if I've made a mistake, but I have yet to hear a clear argument why my edit is a mistake.

When I said that I was confident that this edit was an improvement, I was referring specificity to this changeset this discussion area is for.

As for my edit that removed the coastline and added riverbank tags from the riverbank, I'd say the case isn't as clearcut, but I'll discuss that change its discussion area.

The ways that were traded as `waterway=riverbank` did not trace the same outline, nor were they continuous with each other, just random sections of water. They did not even trace the bank, for the most part, just random mid river areas.

There is no reason for this river to be traced as seashore, with random sections to be additionally traced as riverbank.

Even if the river was acutely mapped with both riverbank and coastline ways this would break the "one feature, one OSM element" approach.

I'm quite confident that this edit is an improvement.

Hi mccaus, I'm wondering where you got the name "Park & Metro" for the construction area at W32nd and Yukon. Is it the name of the now completed housing development, or does it refer to something else?

I debated about doing this edit, because it is a significant change, but in the end can see no reason for the coast to continue as far upstream as it had been. Also it seems contradictory to have the river centre line mapped as a `waterway=river` while the banks are `natural=coastline`.

This edit does change the rendering, slightly to my surprise, most noticeably with areas of mud and water rendered less prominently, but still visible.

I've done my best to maintain the edit history's of the various ways that had made up the river bank, despite needing to divide and recombine them to make them into circular ways.

Overall I'm confident this edit is beneficial. As long as I didn't make any dumb mistakes.

Thanks Alan!

Thank you.