Which is the correct spelling: the node, or the changeset description?

The bridge still has access=no, so routing won't work.

Is that really a rule? As a cyclist, I'd roll my eyes at the suggestion to use the street, and choose the cycle track instead. :P

Oops, I confused you and the reverter, sorry. In the editor you're using, there's a way to align imagery too; I just don't know what it is. Happy mapping. :)

I think you're supposed to know, when you're scolded after-the-fact.

Next best thing: download GPS traces at the same time as loading map data into JOSM; tick the checkbox. Find some heavily-GPS-traced main arteries, and adjust the offset for that imagery in JOSM until those line up. Preferably, do this every time, rather than following the lore that "it's always 3.14 2.78 in this town".

I'll chime in. name:en and name:fr are correct and unchanged, but simple name was missing.

Given this is an English-majority region, setting name = name:en seems reasonable to me.

Hi crindler. I really do believe this road deserves to be tertiary. It connects to the BC highway system and is the first drivable connection north of #16. I've driven it; it's a good road.

PS, nobody thought to ask me if I had a random-camping permit (I do). Enforcement, hah. :D

Hi. I mapped much of the forest/wood in western Alberta originally. At first I was marking it all as natural=wood, but came to realize that landuse=forest was likely more appropriate. It's all managed forest in some sense, logged, replanted, ...

So when I revisit an area such as here, I've been switching the tagging, unless it's within a park where logging etc. is unlikely. (The old CanVec imports were all natural=wood, but that doesn't mean anything.)

The distinction is subtle enough, that I know of no renderers that show the two styles differently.

In the case of Cache Percotte Forest, it's demonstration/training forest with a sign to that effect at the entrance. I was camped in it when an enforcement training exercise formed around me. I was a surprise to them (it wasn't focused on me), so I agreed with their polite suggestion I'd sleep better if I'd moved camp elsewhere.)

Busted! :D

The walls have eyes.

This is not the correct way, and likely will be reverted. If the trails exist on the ground they should not be removed, but rather be tagged appropriately, eg access=private.

Also, it's not "Fast" Gas. https://www.fasgasplus.ca/

Superstore names have not changed to Loblaws. See the link on the OSM objects. I shop there regularly and would notice this.

Hi. Don't forget that newly-added water areas should be added to the forest polygon as inner members, unless trees are actually growing in the water. :) Cheers.

PS, may I suggest
name=Ram Falls
full_name=Ram Falls Provincial Campground
?
The latter two words could be considered noise, and can be (Provincial) or are (Campground) covered by other tags.

Hi ContraBand.

Are you sure this circular-ish area is actually not part of the park? If it's merely a restricted-access area, then it's still part of the park, and should be mapped differently, eg access tag. (I mapped the park originally from the AB gov't shapefile; there was no such exclusion at the time.)

Also, when creating a relation such as here, tags need to be removed from the outer way and copied to the relation. You've left them in place on the outer way, but here the whole relation seems unnecessary. Cheers.

This is good. These ways can't logically be merged, because a way can only have two ends, either separate ends or at the same node such as here.

Sometimes ways can be merged, eg adjacent blocks of a street, if they have equivalent tags, and then it's usually a good idea, but not essential.

It's a good idea to have ways connected (as they appear to be here), if they are in real life. EG, the semi-circular path being connected to the street. This helps routing.

BTW, welcome to OSM!

Poor-quality elevations may be better than none at all, but I'm not encouraging it. My experience has been, the gov't provided elevations, also the peak locations have been quite poor, when GPS readings from the summit have been available. Also, SRTM data, which provides topo contours, clearly disagrees with the old gov't data in many places.

On second glance... These roads are mature, no construction, so why are we creating motorway roads now? They would not have been missing from the map without being noticed long ago. Was something deleted in another changeset, and replaced in this one? Danger, don't mess with major roads without extreme caution; routing breaks.

Coincidentally, I drove those roads yesterday in both directions. I had a look in achavi. The only flaw I can see is the removal of the oneway:yes in the westbound part of the interchange. This is all one-way westbound, as eastbound traffic gets routed along 100 Ave to the south.