Hi there,

I just wanted to leave a quick comment asking if in the future you could avoid attaching landuse to boundaries & roads.

I have been working on an import of post-2023 NB municipal boundaries, and my work has been made more difficult due to features being snapped to the existing boundary members.

Maybe try and attach the residential to the CanVec forest tiles instead, or just leave them detached from anything. I have already fixed all the boundaries in the Fredericton region so you don`t need to worry about it but I just thought I'd let you know.

This makes it easier for me when I am downloading province wide boundary data, and reduces import conflicts. Maybe in the future if more boundary work needs to be done it is better to have them seperated.

Thank you !!

More details:

For the Saint marys FN the previous boundary was not accurate and had been attached to a ton of canvec stuff so I just deleted the existing and re-imported the correct geometry within the same relation.

I also changed the admin_level for first nations from 4 to 6 (most other places use 6, I`m not sure why it would be the same admin level as a provincial boundary but 6 makes more sense).

Added billingual names to all parishes and municipalities within my work area, and added wikidata tags & website information to same.

Deleted old village boundaries that have been superseded by the 2023 amalgamation.

Deleted overlapping boundaries between parishes & counties. Removed inconsistent tagging on boundary members.

Municipalities Completed:
- City of Fredericton
- City of Edmundston
- City of Miramichi
- Municipality of Grand Lake
- RM of Nashwaak
- Village of Arcadia
- Village of Grand Manan
- Town of Oromocto
- Haut-Madawaska

Fixed the total mess that was St Marys nation(Please for the love of God keep the landuse & roads off boundaries); New Import/Alignment of NB Municipal Boundaries; Wikidata tags & billingial names on municipalities & parishes; Fixed overlapping boundaries

Whoops, this was split into 2 changesets but it merged in my JOSM, hence the short changeset comment. Here are the details of what I've done:

- Cleaned up huge mess of overlapping boundaries, inconsistent admin levels, broken relations with NB Parishes.

Updated some 2023 municipal boundaries. Major work needed for language tagging consistency.

Changed all parishes from admin level 6 to 8 in preparation for importing new municipal boundaries.

Rationale for changing parish admin_level is as follows; I cannot start importing new municipalities on top of the existing admin_level=6 as they have different functions and this would not make sense. Municipalities are always admin_level=6 by default. I also Removed some old admin_level=8 villages throughout the province as these boundaries no longer exist due to the 2023 amalgamation. They will be replaced by the import of new municipal boundaries. Now that all parishes are at the appropriate admin_level, this work can continue.

Many of the boundary ways themselves still need the admin_level=6 tag removed.

Detailed breakdown of changes:
Municipal Regions Imported Thus far:
- Municipality of Grand Lake
- Haut-Madawaska
- St-Basile First Nation
- Edmunston
- Village of Arcadia
- Miramichi

Changes in each region:

Grand Lake/Arcadia:
Imported Village of Arcadia municipal boundary; fixed overlapping boundaries with Municipality of Grand Lake. Removed admin_level=6 and admin tags from the parish boundaries.

Edmunston:
Updated geometry of St Basile First Nation, created new boundary relation for same and added them as inner members to the city of Edmunston. fixed ridiculous amount of overlapping boundaries, verified and updated all data for Haut-Madawaska, simplified excessive node geometry, updated Edmunston city boundary

Miramichi:
Corrected Parishes (Nelson, Newcastle, Northesk, Chatham, Glenelg) to fall within the City of Miramichi. Per the government - "Parishes still exist in law and include any municipality, rural community, or regional municipality within their borders."
Parishes within towns which were previously admin_level=9 have been changed to 8 to align with the rest of the data.Updated boundary for the city of miramichi.
Removed duplicate admin level 8 relation for city of miamichi. Imported new borders for parish of chatham.

Grand Manan:
Removed admin_level=5 (???) ways splitting the parish and the village. reset to admin level 8 for parish & admin level 6 for village for consistency. snapped parish to village boundary (parishes are tiered higher than villages/municipalities - there is no "border" between the parish and the village, see comment above.

Everywhere else:
fixed miscellaneous overlapping boundaries, language/tagging issues, removed inconsistent boundary labels between parishes. I did not touch counties at all in this changeset, they seem OK. Please leave a comment below for questions or concerns, I have done my absolute best to avoid causing problems or data errors.

To expand on my point about the admin_level;

Previously in some rural areas the parishes functioned as Local Service Districts ie. the LSD of Canning, so they functioned similarly to a municipality. Now the new (2023) municipalities themselves have taken precedence, which is why the parishes (currently tagged as admin_level=6) should probably be reduced to admin_level=8. I will work further on this when I have the time...

I can only fit so much in a changeset comment but RVC = Rocky View County. All of the Tsuut'ina Nation "chunks" to the east of the Ring Road have been added to both the RVC relation as outer members and the City of Calgary relation as inner members. Admin_level tags have been changed accordingly.

Hello there, I have partially reverted some elements of this changeset, in changeset/145554430. I appreciate the additions of buildings and driveways to the area, but please stop adding things that pretty clearly do not exist. Thanks!

I'm pretty sure this is just Evpac back at it again with more egregiously bad edits. It seems like there's still a few things that need to be reverted I'll do that when I have time but this is exhausting. Has this guy been reported yet?

Thanks for all the excellent work you've been doing on the Tsuut'ina Nation. It's looking great :)

Agree with the above comment. and next time maybe don't go all the way across the province editing random stuff making these huge changeset boxes. I've tried messaging you, comment on your stuff, you don't respond to anything.

I have some questions about this tagging. Since this is technically a highway exit shouldn't it be tagged as "motorway_link"? It's connecting Stoney Tr with highway 8, but the rest of Stoney trail hasn't yet opened. Also, from what I've seen, the ref numbers don't get tagged on the motorway links themselves? since the destination:ref tag is already on there it basically makes it redundant. I might be wrong though, because this section of Stoney Trail is also considered highway 8. Also, I just drove this yesterday and currently the speed limit is 60 so I'll go correct that

I have already had issues with this user making incorrect changesets and they never responded to my comments or concerns. Very frustrating.

Hi, I noticed you made some suspicious looking edits and added some things that do not exist. I understand that maybe you are inexperienced but please do not add in tunnels and roads unless you confirm that they exist from the ground. Many aerial imagery might not be up to date and could contain incorrect information. Please also put more of a description so people know what you are doing. Thanks :)

This is vandalism.

Hello! Just for future reference, when tagging exit "names", use the "destination=" tag on the exit way, instead of putting the "name=" tag on the motorway_junction node. I have gone back and fixed that for you in changeset #141994423. You can also look at the OpenStreetMap wiki page for "Tag:highway=motorway_junction" for more information on how to map that. Anyway, Cheers to the opening of the ring road! Have a great day :)

Is this correct mapping practice? This is a 2-storey parking garage, so I had previously marked two roads with the above ones tagged as layer=1. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to merge both upper floor and lower floor into a single way. At least, that's what I understood from the wiki. Cheers

awesome changeset number :D

encountered this after coming across an out of place bilingual road in Calgary and went in to correct it. Weird edits from this person

alright, changeset #120104531 has it now changed to what it was before. I left the main tags (landuse=grass, leisure=dog_park, operator name) on the site relation along with the name, but also added those three tags to each way. should be correct now.

they are pretty much identical in the real world, but that's a good point so I will change it back. Thanks

okay, see changeset #120074711 for the change. Changed it from site relation to a multipolygon, and transferred the tags into the relation itself including the dog park one . Should be good to go