Hello DENelson83,

After reviewing the discussions at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2021-October/thread.html#10127 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-February/thread.html#10350 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2022-March/thread.html#10353 , https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/83528/can-different-named-areas-of-sea-overlap and https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=14512 , osm.org/user/DENelson83/diary/397876 and osm.org/user/DENelson83/diary/398744 it is clear that the majority of people who have expressed a preference are NOT in favour of your “one patch of water one name” edits. These need to stop now.

Even some of those messages somewhat in favour, such as https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2021-October/010135.html , said what they said on the basis of information remaining that you have deleted in e.g. osm.org/changeset/118182234 .

The sentiment that you have expressed at osm.org/changeset/117963247 (“… you are asking me to renege on that goal. I am sorry, but I cannot.”) and https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/83528/can-different-named-areas-of-sea-overlap/83633 is not OK. You cannot keep just pushing your view on others in this way.

I’ve sent this message as one that you need to read before continuing to edit. You’ll be able to continue editing as soon as you have read it. However, an attempt to continue pushing this agenda will be met with a longer block.

I’d like to avoid a full “status quo ante” revert here and treat the affected areas on a case by case basis. I notice that the Burrard Inlet osm.org/relation/8330512/history is now back to its expected size, and I can also see that you’ve reverted some changes in the St Lawrence Seaway osm.org/relation/2427871- thanks for that.

When things have settled down for a bit (and renderers have caught up) we can then discuss the other changes that remain.

If you’d like to email the DWG about this please email data@osmfoundation.org and include “[Ticket#2022022210000181]” in the subject.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group.