Thanks for the addition! So you connected the path to the bike stile, which from a routing perspective, means a bicyclist would have to go through the stile regardless of which of the 3 directions they were coming from/going to. I'm guessing this isn't actually the layout, but I don't know what is: does the new path connect to the existing path, or the road? Thanks!

If you don't mind me asking, where are you getting all these addresses from? The postcodes in particular are usually pretty hard to find, and Canada Post is pretty litigious against people/orgs who import them from their DBs or derivatives.

Is it a osm.wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dnesting_site ?

I reverted this, 95032086, and 95032218 in changeset 95075720, then applied the intended change in changeset 95075828. It's a bit weird, but when a business closes, you usually don't want to delete the features associated with it. If you do that, you remove all information tagged with it that stays relevant, even if the business is closed (things like addresses, whether it's wheelchair accessible, or the existence of the building itself). The right thing to do is to either delete the specific tags on that feature that are now incorrect (like the name and type of business), or to use one of the lifecycle prefixes, like disused:
osm.wiki/Key:disused:

I did the latter in this case, since it provides hints to other/future local mappers that, e.g., "this is the building Chainsaw used to be in", which can be useful on its own, but also makes it so that it doesn't accidentally get added back by someone who doesn't know it closed.

Neat, thanks! :)

The home hardware was built as a sports hall?

How did you map this? In the future, a source tag would be useful (either on the edit or the way). Also, does this need an informal=yes tag?

A couple things:
- You should pretty much never have a multipolygon with one member. If it can be represented as a single way, then the tags should be on that (i.e., the normal case for mapping objects).
- What you have mapped as grassland I think is actually unmaintained brownfield? It's not owned by the city or part of the park, unless it's changed since I was last there.
- The park was a multipolygon because it is in fact two disjoint areas, with two different posted addresses and everything. Unless that "grassland" is indeed part of the park now, but even then, you have to cross the Ion tracks and Old Albert Street to get to the trails on the other half.

Generally, I would recommend avoiding making major changes like this without a ground survey first. Is the situation on the ground different now, or should we change this back?

reverted in changeset #87048704

landuse=grass is intended for stretches of grass that are used as (decorative) grass, i.e., they're not intended to be used by people for anything. If there's any sports pitch, benches, etc. in it, then it should be mapped as a park or recreation_ground instead. Parks in OSM don't map the things we would typically call parks here, they map almost any semi-natural area (mowed lawns, decorative trees, etc.). Unlike other landcover tags, parks don't need to be a multipolygon to include most other landcover features, like pitches; they're expected to overlap. You can see more on the wiki:

osm.wiki/Tag:landuse=grass
osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

I know it's unusual for a changeset of this age, but I'm thinking of reverting this, since I've encountered it about a dozen times now when noticing that a way is tagged as being paved with asphalt when it's not. The only way I'm noticing these mistakes is happenstance edits of places I'm surveying/have local knowledge of; who knows how many are still left wrongly tagged. Did you do any checking of this, or was it an automated edit?

yeah I've noticed, thanks for the edits :)

No, just meant that they're for representing things that are the same object, and the basins look independent to me (i.e., they could have different tags, like different seasonality, elevations, names, etc.). There's also a general rule of thumb to not use relations (of any kind) if there's a simple way to go without one, since newer mappers tend to get confused by them.

Why tag the basins as a multipolygon?

Given that that building was only added a couple months ago, it seems unlikely that it's gone already. Do you have local knowledge of the area?

This exact bakery was added to the map 20 minutes before you made this edit. Where are you and Hanna Markovich getting this data from, and how are you deciding where to add it?

No worries, like I said the edits so far look good to me. Just noticed the Esri tag in the edit and thought I'd mention it.

Thanks for the edits. :) So far it all looks good, but as a word of caution, Esri imagery is years out of date in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and there's been a lot of buildings torn down for new apartment and condo towers in that time. A sanity check with Bing imagery helps, particularly if you're armchair mapping.

I removed a bunch of landuse=commercial tags here, as government facilities don't fit under that tagging, and there's no obvious replacement yet

please don't add duplicate nodes for elements already tagged as ways (e.g., if a building has an address, you do not also need an address node)