I reverted a bunch of changesets that interacted with this construction/proposed via osm.org/changeset/134422424

I tried my best not to damage any of your edits in the process, but you may want to give a quick check to make sure this still looks right to you. Feel free to let me know if I broke anything you'd like me to fix.

I reverted all the changesets around Waterloo and Guelph in osm.org/changeset/134422424 (I waited far too long to do so, was a bit of a mess but I think it worked out okay.) If anyone wants me to revert any of the other changesets in other areas the DWG didn't handle, let me know.

See osm.org/user_blocks/6996 and osm.org/changeset/133843021 for additional context. This fully reverts the following changesets (modulo conflicts, resolved the best I could manage):

133764272
133769742
133769753
133770747
133771176
133773178
133773312
133808351
133823358
133842970
133843021
133843030
133843123
133843171
133843251

Ah, thanks. I told them in a DM I was going to report them to the DWG if they didn't respond, I guess I should have just done so.

I see, it sounds like it's not operating yet though? Should it be tagged as construction?

This train station isn't listed on GOs website, do you have any sources for its existence?

Please stop making edits and see my comment on osm.org/changeset/133843021

I just did a ground survey of the area in Kitchener, and I saw no evidence of any ongoing highway construction. For planned highways, we have a tag for that: osm.wiki/Tag:highway=proposed
A tag I suspect you're aware of, since you actively removed it. As is, the existence of the highway isn't verifiable on the ground, so even the highway=proposed version is subject to deletion anyway; mapping it as active construction is unambiguously incorrect, as the first sentence of the highway=construction tag description would indicate.

I'm also curious why you decided to map it as construction at all, since every online source I've found says that construction is no closer to starting than it was 15 years ago, with no contracts approved or even currently being sought. You should always fill out the source field when making edits, so that other mappers can tell if you have some insight they don't.

I'm going to revert all the edits you've made around Kitchener. With the above in mind, are there other edits you would like me to revert as well?

Sorry, I ended up reverting this in osm.org/changeset/133539682 . I don't think the paths you tagged as bridges are bridges, and MC ended up very broken somehow.

Partially reverts the following changesets:

62218319
62089559
62089408
62062110
62061806
62061348
62061113
62060884
62060379
62059878
62059205
62058133
62057973
62057561
62057400
62057263
62057128
62056965
62056765
62056633
62056553
62056430

Just to be clear: private houses are very much encouraged, it's just that it takes a lot of time and work to add all those buildings. If you don't want to draw extra attention to these buildings that's of course fine though. I and some other editors have been slowly working our way out from Downtown Kitchener, but if you'd like I can jump here and start adding things along Main and Concession? (Or you are of course welcome to start adding them yourself! :))

Hi! Islands this small should actually be tagged as islets, not islands:
osm.wiki/Tag:place=islet
(I don't use Go Map, but most editors will have a tool to measure something's area; an island becomes an islet at less than around 1 square km/1 million sq m/11 million sq ft).

Also, because this is inside a water area, it has to be taken out of that area's shape, using the multipolygon relation: osm.org/relation/222351
If you're not familiar with multipolygons, they can sound a bit tricky at first, but are pretty simple once you get the hang of them; they're basically just a list of everything that makes the outside of the shape ("outer" members), and everything that makes the inside of the shape ("inner" members):
osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Both of these are easy to detect and fix (I already fixed it osm.org/changeset/127375148), so it's not a big deal, just thought I'd let you know. :)

Please do not add nodes for items already tagged as ways. See: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

they have the same name?

I took some photos to confirm it still looks the same:
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~j3tracey/OSM/facing_path.jpg
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~j3tracey/OSM/facing_alley.jpg
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~j3tracey/OSM/facing_park.jpg

You can't tell from the photos, but you can walk through the tree line without pushing branches or anything, and it looks pretty well worn compared to the surrounding ground, so it seems like there are people using it (the "Boycott Nestle" sticker also presumably means someone else thinks it's a decently high traffic route as well :P). I'm going to go ahead and put it back, but with some better alignment.

This seems like the tagging was correct before? There are 3 lanes, one forward, two backward, one of which is a bus lane. Reverting.

It exists, it's just grass and has some trees between it and the paved path, so can be a bit hard to see. :)

Is it causing routing issues or something?

OSM uses an "on the ground" rule for objects: osm.wiki/On_the_ground

I.e., what gets mapped is not what is necessarily correct in any sort of normative sense (whether ethical, legal, etc.), but what someone would see if they were physically at this location, navigating. I'm going to change "Willow River Park" to the alt_name for now, but if someone were to, say, put up some permanent-looking signage, we could make it the primary name.

Ahh okay. Yeah, I wish they'd used a different name than "unclassified". Thanks for all your edits though. :)

Is there a particular reason for tagging that stretch of Joseph as tertiary?