Hi Greg,

You have added waaaaaaaay more than "foot paths in Londonderry Mall" in this changeset. You've made changes in Calgary, 300 km away, some of which make me seriously question your sources. Your source is tagged as "aerial imagery" and "local knowledge" but you've made changes that contravene both, e.g. this pedestrian tunnel below Macleod Trail: osm.org/way/1232733610

There was a pedestrian way on the map there before, but it had been deleted because *that tunnel is GONE*. It doesn't exist anymore.

Can you please substantiate your sources? I fear you're using very outdated information. And please, please confine your edits to smaller areas. It's so much easier for everyone else to review your changes.

Thanks!

Hi Jaycee,

FYI you mapped an apartment building with the tags `landuse=residential` & `residential=apartments`, but you don't need to do this: the entire complex is already outlined with a `landuse=residential` area.

Instead, the individual apartment buildings should be tagged with `building=apartment`. In the iD editor you can find this by searching for the feature type "Apartment Building" instead of "Apartment Complex". (I know it's a super minor distinction...)

Thanks for contributing to the map. :)

*added houses & addresses...

Hello edelgado912,

You've been making changes across Alberta with the comments "Provincial Park Service wants [...]". Most of your changes seem relatively small, but I can't help but notice you've deleted some things off the map using an appeal to "Provincial Park Service wants [ ]", e.g. osm.org/changeset/144674662.

Do you work for Alberta Parks? Do you represent them in any way?

Frankly what the "Provincial Park Service" [sic] want is entirely irrelevant to whether it belongs on OpenStreetMap or not. We can change the access tagging as appropriate to suit private or non-public access, but just because a road or path isn't open to the public is not a justifiable reason to delete it from the map.

*not signed as 734 [...]

I should also add (I ran out of room in my changeset comment): I removed the old FTR segment from Muskeg River to Goodwin from the Hwy 734 relation, as this is no signed as 734 and no longer maintained by Alberta Transportation (MD of Greenview maintains it).

Hello Evpac,

It has been three days since I sent you a message and left a comment on your changeset osm.org/changeset/144254712, and you still haven't replied. I'm concerned that you're not aware that many of the changes you're making are—from my own personal knowledge, being local to Calgary—blatantly incorrect. You made changes to 17th Avenue SW and Old Banff Coach Road which I know for a fact aren't true. I'm worried you don't realize you may be working off of outdated satellite photos and false info.

Please: respond to this comment. Barring a response from you I will otherwise refer your changes to the OSM Data Working Group, who may temporarily or permanently block you from contributing to OSM any further.

Hello Evpac,

As you are a relatively new contributor to OpenStreetMap, you may not be aware of some of the good practices (osm.wiki/Good_practice) and editing standards and conventions (osm.wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions) used by all mappers to keep the quality and consistency of our work high. One of these good practices is adding good comments to your changesets (osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments). At a basic level it lets everyone else contributing to the map know what you did, and why. The absence of change comments can come across as rude and dismissive to others.

You have been asked by others in comments on your changes (osm.org/changeset/142244107 , osm.org/changeset/142678018 , osm.org/changeset/142990101 , osm.org/changeset/143045192 , osm.org/changeset/143394081) to refrain from editing because those other contributors have found errors in your contributions, and your lack of comments on your changes has at least in part led them to become so frustrated that they suspect you're deliberately vandalizing the map.

Please: add good changeset comments. Comments like "..."—which is the only comment you've ever left on any of your changes except for one—are not helpful. Good comments that elaborate on what you're doing helps to avoid misunderstandings and lets everyone else know that your changes are constructive. Please respond to this comment, or to the direct message I've sent you that is a copy of this comment, to let us know you're actually even reading these attempts to correspond with you.

Thanks

Perfect, thanks very much for following up.

I've added the Anglican parish as a separate node located within the footprint of the building, so that the info that the parish still exists isn't lost. I also added the old names of the building to the building way. See osm.org/changeset/143759086.

Cheers! :)

Do you have a source for this? I know the orthodox parish moved from their own building a couple blocks west of here about seven (?) years ago, but other than a sign out front displaying service times for St. Peter the Aleut's, the sign at the building entrance on 33rd Ave still reads "St. Mark & St. Philip's Anglican Church"... As far as I know the Anglican parish still own and occupy the building, they just share it with the orthodox parish.

Thanks!

No worries, just an FYI. ;)

FYI, the "soccer field" you deleted in this change does actually exist. Except it's not a soccer field, it's—believe it or not—for *polo*. I myself have never seen anyone actually using it, but that's what it's there for. See https://www.calgary.ca/parks/south-glenmore-park.html and https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/www/corporate-communications/locations/south-glenmore-west.pdf (PDF)

I've since re-added it back to the map. (osm.org/changeset/143595458)

I've manually rolled back changes made to Stoney Trail. I can say with 100% certainty that the freeway is still under construction between Bow Trail and Highway 8. It's not scheduled to open for another ~11 months.

Evpac, can you please add comments to your changes?

To anyone who reviews these changes, N.B. that for osm.org/way/1187719542 parking is only allowed for taxis; however. the conditional no-stopping restriction applies to all potential users *including* taxis. I am otherwise unsure how to tag access here.

To be clear: anyone can *stop* here at any hours except Mo-Fr 07:00-08:30 & 15:30-18:00, but no one can *park* here except taxis (at any hour, except when the no-stopping restrictions apply). Make sense?

Hello Shoppinggeo,

Thank you for your contribution, but please note there was already a parking lot on the map in the location you tagged. As such, I've deleted the duplicate node you added.

Please also be mindful of naming conventions. I think it would be helpful if you reviewed osm.wiki/Key:name and osm.wiki/Names , particularly osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions. When you add, for example, a parking lot with a node or area tagged amenity=parking, you do not need to—and should not—also add "name=Parking". We use name=* to assign the *name* of the thing in question, not to describe it. As a point of comparison, it would be like naming a bench "Bench", or a tree "Tree".

Thanks for your contributions so far, and happy mapping. :)

I can independently confirm—without "Lyft-owned imagery"—that this does exist. It's a one-way though; see osm.org/changeset/135077608

Okay, fair enough. I asked because I went to a Flames game recently and was pretty sure the signage still said Olympic Way. :D It was on my mind because I happened to notice there's a sign up a Saddledome Rise which is marked "Saddledome *Way*", which I wondered about. I see the City of Calgary maps still refer to this as Saddledome Rise, not Way, but I presume that was all part of the same project you worked on...?

Hi jmilot,

Appreciate your efforts to contribute to the map, but may I ask why you made these changes? You've added name=Plus 15 Skywalk tags to the ways that constitute the Plus 15 system, which is both unnecessary because there's a relation that encompasses all of these ways already called Plus 15, and erroneous because "Skywalk" is descriptive and not part of the name of the Plus 15 system anyway. It's like tagging a sidewalk with name=sidewalk or a road segment with name=road.

You've also added service=Plus 15 Skywalk and in some instances surface=Plus 15 Skywalk (e.g. osm.org/way/338913941/), which is erroneous because the service=* tag should be used to elaborate on a highway=service road (see osm.wiki/Key:service#Highways). I presume the surface=* tags were simply a copy-paste typo.

Uhhh... when the hell did that happen? Signs still say "Olympic Way SE"...

Huh, I never really considered that people keep thinking highway=unclassified "needs to be fixed"...

Eventually I'm sure it'll change (I'd put my money on it being renamed "minor"); after all, we did eventually get rid of the pedestrian crossings named after zoo animals...