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?

The roads you changed to "residential" should have been left as "unclassified". The term might be slightly misleading if you don't look at the documentation, it doesn't mean "unknown", it's for minor roads that serve non-residential locations. osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

Oh, we should also turn it into a normal way instead of a multipolygon, since the bridges attached the annex, leaving only one member.

Back when I originally mapped this, the 3D building documentation said to only map the footprint, not the whole building outline. This made sense, because with the non-footprint portion, it's impossible to accurately map what level it is in relation to the other paths (e.g., iD now gives a bunch of warnings about intersecting ways). If best-practice has changed, that's fine, though we should at least remove the level=0 tag from the building, since that's no longer really accurate.

Thanks for the edit! If you're wondering why the island didn't show up on the map, it's because it was still surrounded by water. Basically, for the map to "see" the island, there has to be a chunk of missing water mapped, and we do that by mapping the water as a multipolygon: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

While they're ultimately not *that* hard (they're basically just lists of "inner" and "outer" OSM elements that make a shape), they're definitely trickier than most parts of OSM, so if you'd rather keep editing for now without learning about them yet, you'll be fine. I already fixed it here (and changed it to an islet, which is technically what you're supposed to use for small islands like this, though that's also not a big deal). If you would like to learn about it, you can check out that wiki page, and the edit here as an example: osm.org/changeset/115618822#map=18/43.50948/-80.49288

Thanks for the edits! So a couple notes for the future:
- It's preferred if you add a source tag to your edits (in the default editor, iD, that's "Add field"->"sources" when you're saving). It's not big deal if you forget, but it helps things like figuring out how precise the newly mapped features are, and ensuring there's no copyright issues.
- It's a good idea to try to keep the area your editing on the smaller side (roughly the size of a city or smaller, though larger edits are sometimes justified, especially in rural areas). This makes it easier to check out what you changed, and also makes it so the bounding box doesn't span large areas that weren't touched in the History tab. Similar to forgetting sources though, it's not a huge deal if it happens.

Thanks for the edits! For future reference, it's preferred if you add a source tag to your edits (in the default editor, iD, that's "Add field"->"sources" when you're saving). It's not big deal if you forget, but it helps things like figuring out how precise the newly mapped features are, and ensuring there's no copyright issues.

For future reference, if you can, try to avoid merging two crossing ways with two sidewalk ways like this. When all four meet in a single node, it makes it impossible to accurately map curbs (e.g., via StreetComplete), which is important for wheelchairs and visually impaired users.

This service road doesn't exist -- the road is not connected to the sidewalk there (e.g., a bicyclist who tried to turn from Ottawa Street onto the trail there would have a bad day). Routes sometimes have discontinuities; this isn't a flaw in the route, it's just bad urban planning.

Hello! I'll respond to this in detail in a private message, since the notifications work better and this is a more general than the edit here.

iD has warnings when you've done something that's unlikely to be correct, please keep an eye out for those on the right side. Also, just because you can drive a golf cart on something doesn't make it a golf cart path, or a service road (service roads are for highways full-sized motor vehicles can drive on, see the wiki for more info).

Like I mentioned on another one of your edits, you can remove tags from nodes without removing the nodes themselves. When you removed one of the crossings, you deleted one of the only two nodes on Melanie Place, which, since a way requires at least two nodes to exist, deleted the street. I went ahead and restored it (without the crossing) in this changeset: osm.org/changeset/107464213

You created a couple very small roads without names in this edit, where they should have been the existing streets. Not sure how it happened, but some possibly helpful info: you can delete tags from nodes without deleting the nodes themselves, and you can add a node to an existing way (either by double clicking where you want the node, or using the node tool at the top and clicking on an existing way). I've fixed the roads in question by combining them with the existing roads.

I agree that edits should ideally be kept more local than this, but it is only fair to point out that all these edits were in one country (Russia), and the only reason the bounding box for the edit is global is that it spans the 180th meridian (specifically, this way is on the other side of it from where most of Russia is: osm.org/way/129096772 ).

No worries, it was a very minor issue. Thanks for responding. :)