Thanks! Fixed in osm.org/changeset/111240383

I've reverted the deleted forests. In any case, your contribution is absolutely valued but I just noticed some errors in it. A tip for future edits is to check out notes and history of surrounding items. Usually you can learn a great deal about the intent of the mappers that came before.

I've almost got the changeset ready but before I add them back though, can you confirm the woods are indeed there in the real world?

Also, I did some research and it looks like this data is (as for now) incompatible with the ODbL we are using. Check out osm.wiki/Canada_Building_Import#Compatible_Licences

I'll check out the data and restore them. I've got some experience getting old versions of objects back.

Removing data because it's in the way isn't usually a good practice. Do you have a source for the Lidar data? I traced them from Esri data (which also comes from the NB gov't).

osm.org/changeset/95374321
I also fixed some of the topology of the golf courses. There were lots of overlapping polygons where the green and fairways meet...
Also, there is very high quality imagery available that is slightly older than Bing but absolutely more usable to trace features very accurately. Please consider Esri World Imagery when mapping in cities in New Brunswick.

Hey, I noticed you deleted some forests in this changeset surrounding the golf course. They are still there on imagery. Why did they have to go?

@the_knife Oui, je sais que les images aériennes ne sont pas parfait mais dans beaucoup de cas, le cadastre n'est pas bien non plus (voir mon journal sur ce problème: osm.org/user/Creator13/diary).

Aussi, j'utilise l'outil pour orthogonaliser les bâtiments car beaucoup n'ont pas des angles droites sur la carte - mêmes pas les bâtiments modernes.

Mon français n'est pas parfait car ce n'est pas ma langue maternelle :)

If it's not a problem I'll answer in English as my written French is getting a bit rusty. (Si vous préférer le français je voudrais bien traduire).

First, let me start by thanking you for looking at and criticizing my changeset because it helps me become a better mapper :)

I indeed know that wall=no is a valid tag. I did not notice the tag until later but I have refrained from removing building parts with the tag ever since. In most cases I agree merging or removing those tags was a mistake, so I'll try to get them back in cases where it matters. However, in some cases they make no sense, like some really tiny parts of buildings that will only clutter the map instead of adding quality data. There are also cases that, when overlayed on aerial imagery, show that these parts aren't actually there so I've removed those. In the case of the Collège Jules Ferry I noticed that the shape of the entire building was incorrect so I just retraced it entirely, thereby removing the wall=no parts. But rest assured, in the future I will not remove them any more! (unless they fall in the cases I described)

Furthermore, since you seem to be the main mapper of this area, I want to refer you to the diary entry in which I explain what I'm doing here, so that you're aware: osm.org/user/Creator13/diary/41581

The source on this is wrong, should be "local knowledge, BDOrtho IGN, Bing"

Oeps, vergeten. Bedankt voor de fix!

Bedankt voor deze tip, ik zat hier inderdaad over te twijfelen. Inderdaad logisch dat het niet handig is als je dingen later weer wilt editen.