Stop right there please.

I looked at random at one of the ways you deleted,
osm.org/way/483734369/history
...and see you deleted a previously HAND-EDITED stream (attributed Bing) to replace with this CanVec import.
This is a bad move! CanVec data is decades out of date, and the natural-feature "data" is hopelessly unworthy of being in OSM. Not when we have high-precision satellite technology available.
Cease-and-desist please, before you destroy anybody else's hard work.

Hi. I think you have a typo in the name of relation "Rosedale". That would be Rossdale, right?

That data is of horrible quality. Don't do it.
It's much better, IMHO, to trace from satellite imagery. Yes it takes more time. I've done some rivers that way, and over time we'll get a quality job done.

Hi Huaraz.

The Razor's Edge is a somewhat famous bike trail. It was built by and for bikers.

I'm curious: why did you remove bicycle=yes?

Nice work on the golf course!

Correction: source=survey

I've tweaked the tags after visiting to check things out. The west sidewalk is now open, as are all 3 lanes.

Ghost River. I meant Ghost River.

PS, I wouldn't have been so fast to remove the old bridge; it's still there for another year, and for the next month (?) that's where pedestrians will have to cross.

But I wouldn't bother putting it back.

That didn't take long, good work!

I see review_requested, so I'll offer a few comments.

It's probably now time to remove construction=secondary and fut_name.

For a little while longer, the bridge is only 2 lanes and the sidewalk isn't open yet, but I wouldn't bother updating for that very temporary state.

I'm not sure about cycleway=shared_lane. Once the sidewalks are open, cyclists would be encouraged to use those, and I"m sure there won't be any lane space for them on the main bridge deck.

And - though it doesn't matter much, I don't think the bridge counts as a suspension bridge. Arch seems more appropriate, though I haven't checked the wiki for commonly used values.

+ Bing imagery; forgot to mention.

Right, access=private.

Also, "(Private Road)", is inappropriate as part of a name, eg that road nearby. That's what the access key is for.

Thank you for taking care of this. :)

Thanks for looking into it. Cheers.

For example, Seminary Hill (your name?) which you created as v1 with access=no. I'm sure that was mapped previously.

Hi Bellbellbell.

Why have you tagged so many trails, major ones, as access=no? That means keep out, no trespassing. I'm pretty sure that's not the case for most if not all of them. osm.wiki/Key:access

I've fixed up a few of the ones I noticed, but I'm not pulling that thread out of the sweater and fixing everything.

Hi huaraz.

I've noticed you imported an incomplete trail from CanVec osm.org/way/429418921 when there was already a GPS-recorded complete version on the map.

Please be extremely careful importing trails from CanVec (or better, decline completely) due to their generally poor accuracy. It's a lot of work to verify that a mapped trail doesn't actually exist on the ground (distraction from an otherwise enjoyable hike), so there's a real cost to undoing these errors.

Thank you.

Hi Mesowhite.

These four little subdivisions would seem more appropriate with no admin_level at all (does any "administration" happen at this level?), or 10 if anything. Place=neighborhood or something similar should be adequate, no?

And they're currently mapped as "holes" within Parkland County, eg, not part of the County. That seems wrong, and really stands out on the map.

Cheers,
VP

I've restored some wood areas that suddenly went missing.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong on that, and this is still the original trail-less track of a wandering geocacher. It's hard for me to tell. In which case, please ignore, and have a good day. :)