Awesome, thanks!

As this edit changes both the coastline, and other objects, and the coastline rendering updates with a different frequency than other objects it may look a bit weird until the coastline rendering is updated too.

This edit adds `ref` and `old_ref`tags to what is now mapped as highway G317, for example: way/81967418 and others. What are the sources of these `ref` values?

I've checked the addresses on the East side of Lanark St, and found most of them accurate, just one building had 3 separate addresses in reality, and only one added by this changeset. Even though the addresses added are mostly accurate, I would like to know what the source this editor is getting this address data from. Please let us know mapgdd1.

This changeset contains at least 1 error in the addresses added. I was out noting some addresses today, to add them to OSM, and found that 3333 Commercial had both been added to the wrong building. It should be on the neighbouring building.

I think I've asked before, but what source are you using for these addresses? It would be very useful to provide this information, and many sources *require* users credit them, for example the addresses provided by the City of Vancouver, under the "Open Government Licence – Vancouver", requires crediting them.

Wherever you are getting these addresses it'd be worth letting other OSM editors know.

This edit adds a small park, named "Beach Access". I'd like to know if this is actually a separate park from Tapovan Sri Chinmoy, and if it is, what the official name is. I've made a note about this, could you please answer it here: note/874456

Thank you!

Thanks for the input Viajero. I am annoyed by Josm warnings too, and it feels better to only upload changes that Josm does not provide warnings for, but I think that warnings should not be viewed as definitive. I think in some cases it's better to upload despite the warnings.

What's the reason for adding the name of the road to a bridge?

I always felt that if a bridge had a name tag, then it should be specific to the bridge. This bridge probably has a name, but it'd be something generic like "bridge 18".

Am I missing something?

This edit deletes a 2.6km section of road and a bridge, causing routing engines to provide a 451km detour. It seems that the deletion of this section of road was done in error. The road was certainly open to the public and in good shape 9 months ago, when I was there.

I do feel it necessary to point out that, this is not the first time I've come across an edit by a telnav mapper, that has messed up the map, through what seems like carelessness.

I've reverted the edit, to fix the issue.

I can't say from first hand knowledge that this is actually a weir, but that is how I understood the tagging, and how it looks in the imagery. The way was actually tagged as a hospital, which is clearly wrong. One of the nodes was tagged as a weir, and seems the original editor intended that for the entire way.

Hi Warin, thanks for your quick reply. I hope my initial message didn't come across as rude. After sending it I was thinking I could have been more polite. Sorry about that.

You make some good points. And I agree, that the way I've done it is not ideal, but I do think it is an improvement.

To start out I'll point out that the renderer is not seeing it as a pedestrian area *only*. It is presently being rendered as a pedestrian area, with a market icon, and the name on it. It "sees" both.

When the way at the periphery of the chowk did not have the area= yes tag on it, the name did not render, and the fact that it's a market was only clear if you know mandi is the Hindi word for market.

I'd also point out that while the area is *packed* with the stalls of vegetable hawkers, it is not just the periphery that is accessible by pedestrians, there are plenty of paths through it. I'd compare the chowk with a city square (which is one translation): imagine a city square somewhere in Europe that had sections used for café tables. We could map the entire square as a pedestrian area, and not worry about the fact that some areas are not publicly accessible w/o buying a coffee. The difference here is that more of the area is not accessible due to it being taken up by the hawkers tables, but it's a reasonable comparison.

I'd also say that we are not breaking the one feature one OSM eminent rule. The Chowk is a paved area *and* a market. This is not uncommon, and can be clearly seen in the pre-existing name tag, which contains both the word chowk (for crossroads, or square) and mandi (for market).

You're right, this is not perfect, but I think it's as good as we can get, I'm convinced it's an improvement.

I hope that makes sense, and is helpful.

Hi Warin61, are you familiar with the area that had been tagged area=yes? Because it seems to me that it is more accurate to tag it as an area.

While the entire area isn't accessible due to the vegetable hawkers' stalls, it's not just the periphery that is publicly accessible.

As such I'm adding on the area=yes tag, but wanted to let you know so I'm posting this comment.

Oops, I forgot to update the source tag on this changeset, it should be "Bing", supplemented by "Strava Heatmap"

Thanks for the positive feedback! :-)

Thanks for your edits! I've added tags to the Mosque, as you've requested. Here's the changeset changeset/55616594

I haven't used OsmAnd for editing so I can't provide advice on how to use it for adding POIs, but I see you've used iD a few times, and it's really quite good. You can always add something with incomplete tags with OsmAnd and then later, when you're at a computer, add the remaining tags.

I hope that is helpful. If you have any questions, I'm happy to do my best to answer if you have any questions. We could really use some more people editing in Kashmir, especially people who are in the area. I hope you continue to edit.

I passed by on 29th, and saw the construction area went as far as the corner of Dunbar and 30th, but do not know how far east it goes on 30th. I probably covers the entire area of the parking lot, but I didn't actually see that.

Thanks for looking it over Adam! I'm sure that data was the best thing going at the time. I've seen a lot of improvement in the available imagery in the 4 years I've been contributing here too. It makes things much easier. I'm glad my edit looked reasonable to you.

Hi Adam, I see this edit took place quite some time ago, but you seem to still be active on OSM.

Looking over the alleys in Prince Rupert I see many that do not exist in the imagery. They seem to have been added by you in import(s) around this time. I suspect that the data the imports were using wasn't entirely accurate, and have delete some alleys, and made some other tweaks. I thought you might want to look over the changes I made, here is the changeset: changeset/55475349

I suspect that the node representing Prince Rupert was deleted, but I don't want to go through the edit history to find it.

Well, it does in fact go down Gaglardi Way, but what I meant was that it does not go on Gaglardi South of the intersection with University Dr.