Are you sure there is a post office there? Canada Post's records do not show a post office in that location.

I noticed you put in some post office data.
Is it possible that you could help us out with WikiProject Canada Post?

osm.wiki/WikiProject_Canada_Post

Okay. That makes sense.

If I may, can I interest you in this project that I recently started?

osm.wiki/WikiProject_Canada_Post

Are you sure that's where Bayfield's post office is? Canada Post is indicating a different location to the southeast.

Canada Post says it's there. It may be in the adjacent pharmacy, though. I hope I didn't get that wrong.

This location does not match the address for this post office in Canada Post's records. Is this actually a post office, or just a mailbox?

We always appreciate additional ground surveys, and you can use the spreadsheets linked on that wiki page to guide such a survey.

However, given the current COVID-19 pandemic, you may want to stay in your home community for now.

Thanks for the help. Good start. :)

I noticed that you just added another post office in Ontario. If you have not seen this yet, may I interest you in it?

osm.wiki/WikiProject_Canada_Post

The bay in relation #9964568 actually has a name, "Port Moody". Yes, it shares its name with the city on its east shore.

Are you sure that address for the 108 Mile Supermarket is correct?

Yes. "en:" is now added. Thank you.

Yes. This is one of the electoral areas of the Regional District.

Why'd you remove the name "Thrifty Foods"?

This is the methodology used for such points in British Columbia. They are tagged with "natural=cape" and not "place=locality". To me, "place=locality" would suggest a place that a person might have some interest in visiting, while "natural=cape" simply suggests a natural coastline feature with an official name. However, if you feel that some of these points don't qualify for the "natural=cape" tag, you may revert them.

I've just visited the Tasman Road end of this path, and strangely enough, I don't see any "no trespassing" signs at this end.

I have not been that way yet. I am performing a ground survey of street addresses in Area C, and just finished putting in all of the addresses off Left Road.

I was just in this area today, and saw that additional "no trespassing" signs were posted at the currently-plotted entrance to this trail on Eagles Drive. I seriously believe that this land is private property, and the landowner does not want anyone using this trail.

Would you happen to know why you tagged the trail through Ravenwood Park, way #676059280, as "access=no"?

Well then, next time I fire up JOSM, I'll just have to remove that data. But that raises another question: How would we be able to properly add this data? I do see a valid use case for it in OSM.