Looking at the imagery I'm pretty that it shows the new depot here, but can't be entirely sure. I also added the address based on an anonymous note. Kinda questionable, but it is an entirely plausible address.

I've left a couple of small sections as cycleways, as they have been widened with the recent road work, and have shared pedestrian/cyclist markings. The sections marked as sidewalks are so narrow that a cyclist cannot pass another cyclist or a pedestrian w/o one of them coming to a stop.

This edit changes the cycleway=shared tag on Crompton Street to cycleway=lane, I'm changing it back to cycleway=shared because there is no bicycle lane on this road, nor has there ever been. It's just an ordinary road that happens to be designated a bicycle route.

The construction that took place in the last few months of 2017 seems to have been completed, but I still see signs telling drivers to expect delays, so maybe the work will continue, and the workers are just off for Xmas and New Years. I don't expect that there'll be more lanes added, but time will tell.

Thanks for fixing this Jarek! I didn't make the connection between bus #3 and the gratuitous digit.

I had no idea Bajaj made such a cool looking bike.

The Himalaya are very beautiful. I've been to Zanskar, and over the Pensi La too, but not for over 10 years. I was in Central Ladakh last summer, and I really love that part of the world. And would like to get back again. I've been mapping in Kashmir and Ladakh, while day dreaming about returning.

Thanks Bhai :-)

I wasn't trying to challenge you, just wondering where the info had come from. I do find it useful when people put that in the edit summery, and/or the source tag of the changeset. Just saying that you'd been there would have been more than sufficient. All the same, that article in The Hindu was really fascinating.

By the way is your profile picture you on an Enfield in the Ladakh, or Spiti, or someplace like that? Looks pretty awesome.

I understand that. I'm asking where did you learn the name "Gue"?

I see this edit adds the name "Gue" to this village: node/3004260144

I'm wondering where you got the name from? It sounds very Chinese, and not at all Ladakhi, though the Chinese name "巨哇" is pronounced "jùwā".

I can't speak for the validity of the name, as I've not ridden in the trails around Squamish, but knowing MTB'ers I find the name entirely plausible. Trails like these are made by a bunch of dudes with shovels and bikes.

"Dude, we should *totally* call this one 'Your Mom', cuz, then we'd be riding your mom! Get it?"

Simple pleasures. :-)

Good catch indigomc! I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it in the news if that'd land had all become flooded, so it looks like a safe assumption to me. :-)

Hi Manny, I've added a a note, questioning existence of the gas station added by this changeset. Here's the note: note/1234998

What is the source of these addresses?

Hi mappered1, I've asked before, but I'm going to ask again: Were are you getting this address data from? It's important to let other mappers know, and to keep a record of, where info is coming from.

I noticed that you added addresses to the buildings on the East side of Cambie, between King Ed and 26th. I'm pretty sure that those buildings do not exist anymore, and that it is a construction site for another of the Condos going up in the area. (I'll double check that).

It's also weird that the building to which you added the address 481 W 26th Ave is not actually on 26th Ave, but has another house between it and 26th ave.

I see that the addresses you've added does correspond with the address data that the City of Vancouver provides, including the fact that the CoV data poorly aligns that house (481 W 26th), and places it closer to the building you added it to. The CoV address node in question is still between the building that faces 26th, and the one you put it on, but it is closer to the one you added it too.

There has been talk about the open licensing of the CoV data, and the consensus seems to be that it's ok to use it, but it is required that we provide proper attribution to them. It's not much for them to ask that much.

On the other hand you may be using a dataset based on the CoV data, but licensed differently. Like if you were just getting addresses off google. That would be bad, please don't do that. I'm worried that this may be what you are doing, because you are editing with iD, and I don't think iD can support the import of KML, the format that the CoV provides the address data.

I know it was 4 years ago that you made this edit, but if you get this message I want to ask: what was the source for these ways?

I wanted to be honest about the quality of the data I based this edit on, but please do not remove the trails, I'm confident they are more or less accurate, and I want to do a bike tour in this area next summer. It'd be good if my route was in Osmand, and I can adjust the trace, and add more detailed tags at that time.

Hi Matt. It's always great to see new users here on OSM, and I hope you stay and contribute.

That said you edits so far give me some concern. From your edit summaries I understand that you do not want Westwind to appear on the map. I understand that it is privately owned land, but to my understanding there is no prohibition on adding that to the map. I'll also point out that some of your paying guests may find having the road and paths of Westwind mapped to be useful.

As such, I've added back the things you'd removed.

I've also added `access=private` tags to all the trails (the road had been tagged as such all along) and the two gates that appear on the map at present. This means the trails show up more grey, and people will not be routed on them.

This reflects the situation in reality quite well, as far as I can tell; ie there are trails, the trails are closed to the public.

I will point to this question on the OSM help site: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/54972

I hope this satisfies your concerns, but if not there are options open to you: add a question to the help site I linked to above may help you understand how OSM deals with private land, and you *may* get an opinion that differs from the one I've given you. Additionally you could email the Data Working Group ([email protected]), who deal with legal concerns.

All the best, and I hope this message is helpful and makes sense. If you have any questions I'd be happy to do my best to answer.

This edit of mine hid the already mapped fairways in the default rendering. That's unfortunate, but looking over the wiki I think that I changed the tags to the more appropriate ones, so I'm leaving it as is.

I've changed the address back to 12 W10th, after visiting the site again, and double checking that I didn't make a mistake last time.

I do feel that it was inappropriate to change the address I'd added with "survey" as my source, without adding a source of your own.

Ooops, I forgot, I also improved the stream trace in the upper Markha valley too.