Oh boy... :/

Again, this is precisely to the heart of what that other contributor on the mailing list meant when they wrote that "... [this] ought to be a case by case thing and any mass changes are probably not capturing the local naming unless the source data being applied has been created that way. The language and terminology used can be very important and context sensitive."

I "fully understand" where you got "Tsuu T'ina Nation 145" from, and you're factually correct insofar as the official name of the reserve lands according to the federal government is still "Tsuu T'ina", but that's why the relation was tagged with "official_name=Tsuu T'ina Nation Indian Reserve No. 145". The people themselves corrected the spelling years ago. (And the fact that you neither know that nor give a damn is what's culturally insensitive, bud...) You're not "fixing" anything here but deleting the corrected spelling, and deleting the name in their own language, you're just perpetuating an error that many others haven't roused themselves to fix.

I'm going to chime in on the mailing list; in the interim, until a consensus is built, can you please stop making these sorts of changes? Thanks in advance

Whoa whoa whoa, I appreciate that you're *trying to build* a consensus on what to do but I've gone and looked at the talk-ca mailing list and I see no consensus there. You've got one person writing "My feeling is it should be the name of the reserve," and four other people writing things like "I agree [to use the name of the reserve] seems a considered opinion and I lean towards it [...]. However, if a local tribe wishes to name theirs '...Tribe' or '...Nation' I certainly nod my head and do not object," "I think this is a one-at-a-time to consider, case-by-case," and "I do a lot of work with Indigenous Peoples on mapping of their lands and agree [...] that it ought to be a case by case thing and any mass changes are probably not capturing the local naming unless the source data being applied has been created that way. The language and terminology used can be very important and context sensitive."

In this case you've replaced the name with a deprecated spelling (Tsuut'ina, not Tsuu T'ina) and outright deleted the name in the Tsuut'ina language! So now you've gone and done something factually incorrect *and* culturally insensitive to boot. This is precisely what the other contributors were talking about when they wrote that "mass changes are not capturing the local naming"...

Okay, but... the name of the reserve *is* present in that other pre-existing relation: the Tsuut'ina Nation. That is its name. It's also tagged with official_name="Tsuu T'ina Nation Indian Reserve No. 145". I'm confused as to what information you think was lost and needs to be replaced with an otherwise identical relation. I'm trying to understand; I was just going to delete this relation as an unnecessary duplicate.

I notice you changed the wikidata and English Wikipedia links, so that the 'old' relation points to the article about the Tsuut'ina Nation itself, while this 'new' relation points to the article about the reserve land. Is this what you're really driving at, that you feel there ought to be a relation for the land itself and another one for the reserve...? I don't mean to be rude but it seems pointless and unnecessary if that's the case; for instance we don't have overlapping relations for the land that comprises Canada and another separate one for the polity of Canada. It's... just Canada.

Hi Michael,

I noticed you'd made a recent change to this relation, adding the deprecated "Sarcee" as an "alt_name" which I subsequently changed to "old_name", and now I'm looking and realize... you just added this relation today.

I'm confused: why did you add this relation in the first place? There is already a pre-existing relation on the map (osm.org/relation/4183319), which you added wiki links to. What purpose does this other, duplicate relation serve?

Thanks

Lansdowne Avenue*, that is.

It was missing lanes forward/backward, but that wasn't a "mistake": it was just information to be added. The problem is you introduced *two new mistakes*: 1) you changed lanes=4 to 3, and 2) added lanes:backward=1. Neither of those pieces of data was correct.

I'm just bringing this to your attention because I don't know where you sourced that data from, and wherever it did come from, it's wrong. As I wrote in my original comment, this road has been four lanes wide for 40+ years; if you have a source that tells you it's three lanes, I would be very careful using that source's data going forward, lest further erroneous data get entered into the map.

Thanks

Hi Josh,

Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap! I'm just writing to give you a couple pointers about your edit here. First of all you created a way outlining a bunker on the golf course, but you tagged it as "natural=beach". That tag is for where there is a naturally-occurring beach along a waterway, not a bunker. A golf bunker has its own tagging, "golf=bunker". See osm.wiki/Tag:golf=bunker and osm.wiki/Tag:leisure=golf_course for more info.

You also added a name to the bunker, calling it "bunker". You don't need to do this, and really, you don't *want* to do this. Name tagging should only contain the name of the feature, not a description of it. See osm.wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only. You don't need to describe the feature like this using "name=bunker" because, 1) "golf=bunker" already means it is a golf course bunker, and 2) it's not *named* "bunker", it *is* a bunker. :)

If you're ever not sure about how to tag a feature the OSM Wiki (osm.wiki) has lots of info.

Thanks again for your contributions!

FYI the changes you had made here to the lanes were inaccurate, and I have since corrected it (see changeset 129005921). I'm curious where you even got data or info that said this road segment had three lanes; it has been four lanes since the bridge to the west was constructed 40 years ago.

Whoops, my bad. Thanks for fixing this.

Hi Binzy_Boi,

As an aside from the comment thread on my earlier changeset that affected the Superstore, you don't need to tag addresses with addr:city=Calgary and addr:prov=AB. It's superfluous because there's an encompassing administrative boundary around the City of Calgary, so anything and everything inside that boundary automatically has a "Calgary, Alberta, Canada" address. There was a project by other mappers in Canada to go through and delete addr:city and addr:province tags where they're not necessary, so please don't waste your time putting them back. ;)

Cheers!

A good example of this confusion is at "The Core" shopping centre. If you go to the shopping centre's website it gives an address of 324 - 8th Ave SW. In reality this is several legally distinct properties that all happen to interconnect to form one shopping mall. "The Core" is just a branding exercise: the mall itself is still separately and distinctively composed of spaces in TD Square (317- 7th Ave), the old Eaton Centre (751 - 3rd St) and the old Eaton's department store space that became a Sears and is now Holt Renfrew (510 - 8th Ave).

Hi Binzy_Boi,

To be perfectly honest in this changeset I just fixed the tagging of the address; another contributor had put addr:housenumber=240, 540, but I recognized that they meant "Unit 240, 540 - 3rd St SE". (It's a pretty common error that inexperience contributors make.) I presumed it was correct because it jived with some of the other businesses like the TD bank branch on the first floor (Unit 110, 540 - 3rd) and it makes sense that it would have a unit number in the 200s because the store itself is on the second floor.

I think the confusion arises because there are multiple municipal addresses for commercial retail units in the same building. As far as I can tell the Winners on the south side is "428 - 6th Ave SE"; the vacant CRU to the east of the Winners (maybe it's not vacant anymore, haven't been by there in a while) had an address of 436 - 6th in plain white lettering above the door. The Scotiabank and Freshslice Pizza around the corner on the 4th Street side have 4th St addresses.

In my experience sometimes retailers are a little lazy about having their "correct" address posted to their website when it's a unit in a building with multiple municipal addresses. They themselves probably don't know any better or care, as long as they still get deliveries of product for sale and garbage pickup. :)

As a sanity check I often use https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/info/mc/personal/postalcode/fpc.jsf to double-check if an address "exists" in the Canada Post postal code system. According to Canada Post there is a Unit 240, 540 - 3rd St SE, postal code T2G 1T4.

Oh don't bother, I don't need photographic proof. To be perfectly honest I haven't walked past the old CBE building in a while so I don't recall a plaque, but I believe you when you say it's there. I just wanted to know if there was such a plaque, or something like that.

To be perfectly honest I had added the statues to the map and I remember at the time I wasn't sure which name to give it, because both names were somewhat common, so I went with the one that the artist uses. That was really the only rationale behind it me tagging as "Brotherhood of Mankind" in the first place.

Like I said I don't favour one name over the other, it doesn't really matter to me as long as no information is lost (i.e. as long as someone doesn't waltz in and delete one of the names) and people don't get into spats about which one is "more correct". Just having this conversation in changeset comments can be evidence enough to show someone in future "Oh, this is why this was named this, these two people had a conversation about it and it turns out there's a plaque on site that calls it "Family of Man."

Thanks again!

Hi Binzy_Boi, out of curiosity do you have a source for the "official" name of the "Family of Man"/"Brotherhood of Mankind"? You've changed it to "Family of Man", but the artist Armengol referred to it as "Brotherhood of Mankind".

I'm not really in favour of one or the other being the name used on the map, but I'm just curious if you have a source that definitively points to "Family of Man".

Thanks :)

... and deleted an overlapping sidewalk added in changeset 118377318.

Accidentally requested a review w/ an errant click, honestly don't think it needs it...

Sorry, that's changeset 118457979, not 118477957

Just wanted to add, 16th Ave @ 8th St SW is actually a really good example of where unmarked crossings across 8th Street do NOT exist, because there is signage specifically disallowing pedestrians to cross there.

Hello again Binzy_Boi,

Thanks again for your contributions. Please note that tagging these roads with "sidewalk=both" is unnecessary, as the sidewalks are already modelled as separate ways. The tagging should be "sidewalk=separate", or no "sidewalk=*" tag at all. See osm.wiki/Key:sidewalk for more info.

Thanks again!

Hi Binzy_Boi,

Unmarked crosswalks exist at the corners of every intersection in the province of Alberta, unless noted otherwise by signage or other markings. The Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation (AB Reg 304/2002) defines a crosswalk as "that part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connection of the lateral line of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway". As such, even at tee intersections like 7th St & 16th Ave SW, there are unmarked crossings.

I have re-added the crossings you deleted (see osm.org/changeset/118480493). Please be careful about deleting unmarked crossings.

Thanks