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.

I saved the address of the building that was here before the construction, by placing it on a node. I expect that the same address will be used on the new building, but that should be double checked.

I looked at that link. I do not see anything about route G317, either in the text body (which is general laws pertaining to road network design and classifying), or in the maps.

We have route G317 joining G109 just north of Nagqu (那曲 or Nakchu). 40km north. The svg map in the link shows route numbers, but shows nothing in the area of Nagqu. In fact it shows no roads branching off the G109 during the 1000km between Golmud and Lhasa.

The png map does not show any route numbers, and is so low resolution, that it is impossible to read any of the characters for any places smaller than a provincial level capital. From its location, and rough letter shape, I think I can identify Nagqu, and the road that we have intermittently marked as G317, but this does not provide us any useful information.

Hi Sonam, Thank you for your edits in Bhutan! I'm glad to see you are continuing to edit OSM. I see this edit has added `name=house` to many buildings. The name tag is for real names, and should not be used for descriptions of what a building is, or what it's used for. As such I've removed the `name=house` tags from buildings here. Please look over the area and see if there are other buildings that incorrectly use the name tag.

If you have any questions about mapping with OSM, feel free to ask me. I'm guessing from your name that you are from Bhutan, and it's great that you are mapping there.

I just added a few more building traces in this area, and moved the nodes you'd added to the building outlines. You might want to check my work, as I am armchair mapping the area, and your edit says you did a gps survey.

That's very flattering, I'm just a amateur though. Are you speaking at it?

This edit has added two streets to the SE of Durbar Square, one of which overlaps completely with the other. It is clearly an error, but I do not know which name is correct: Nisthananda marg or Jochhne. ( way/577458434 or way/577458435 ). I have deleted the shorter of the two ( changeset/59933484 ), as I know the area well enough to know that the short one was too short, but do not know if the remaining road is named correctly.

Also I'm interested in what the building named "Resting place" is. Is it some place anyone can shelter from the rain or sun?

What was this mapping based on? Is there really a church in Dhulikhel?

I've realized that without the forest tag the parks stopped rendering at all. While I don't want to tag for the renderer, I do want these parks to render.

I checked how national parks are tagged in Canada, and found that the `leisure=nature_reserve` tag was on all of them, in addition to the `national_park` tag. It seems an appropriate tag for these parks too, so I've added. Please let me know if you feel it's not good tagging.

Thanks bhai. :-)

I've deleted the forest tags off these parks, as none of these parks were entirely forested, many already had the forested areas mapped more accurately, and adding the forest tag to the park hid the more accurate forest boundary. I know you are a very experienced mapper, but I think it is better not to add forest tags to park boundaries.