Feel free to revert if the bridge is ever restored.

Hi. I've walked many of these trails, and some of them are practical for cycling as well. Thus, they're multi-purpose. I don't think the highway tags should have been removed.

Nothing of mine was reverted, AFAIK. It was just a pre-emptive concern.

Are we, as mappers, expected to do a deep-research of all discussion that might've influenced the wiki, before relying on the info there? At this moment, the wiki suggests flowline is legal, though it seems an edit war is starting. Your warning note got shunted to the side.

Don't discourage mappers (not just AG!) by reverting changes done in good faith by following the wiki rules-of-the-day.

PS, as a community member, I support waterway=flowline. Record my vote however you do that, please.

I agree with AG and the wiki. Wiki is our rule set, not gov.ca.

I've added plenty of flowlines, and split a good number of rivers where they disappeared into lakes.

Hi. It looks like there's also a pedestrian/bike connection between the 90/170 intersection and the alley immediately east; I see a dogleg in sat view.

This is a useful shortcut for a challenging bike route.

I'm just baffled why there are two overlapping protected areas here, with different names and boundaries.

I can take care of it; thanks for understanding.

I'm okay with leaving the pond-edge trail deleted; it never amounted to much of anything. Cheers.

Thanks for clarifying. Sounds like many trails this time of year, which are more visible in the other seasons. I'd restore the trail (the one in forest at least), and add a suitable trail_visibility tag. But given this is/was a quad trail, it should still be somewhat visible (and passable) for many years yet.

BTW, the bicycle tag refers to legal state, not practicality (though I have ridden this trail a few years back). Nothing I've seen here says you can't ride a bicycle on the trails. Cheers.

Ah okay, I see the main trail is still mapped, as it should be. But the shorter one connecting to the road past the tree stand (which I chose not to map), I can't believe that's disappeared.

We map what's on the ground, if there's any trace of it. Lots of tags are available to map trail condition, good or bad. Cheers.

Well-groomed quad trails don't just disappear into nothing in six years. (I walked and mapped it originally.)

What condition is it REALLY in?

I take that back. Didn't notice those sites are in a PLRA, which the website does refer to. Apologies.

These are all unnamed random campsites, informal=yes. That website doesn't apply; this one does: https://www.alberta.ca/camping-on-public-land

Also, name tag is misused. name=*?uselang=en

How does a US law apply to a map of Canada, provided by servers in the UK?

PS, welcome to OSM, "OSMDMCA".

Nice try.

Great work on all the detailed mapping around here!

Story. A few years back I random-camped across the road, unaware of the gravel pit. Suddenly at 7am, I was aware - gravel crushing! I left quickly, drove off and brewed my coffee at a wide spot on the road with a view.

The way and the node are spelt differently. One is likely wrong, no?

Suggested TODO for whoever reactivates things after new bridge complete:
search "construction" or "access=private" to be sure nothing missed.

"Western/Northern Mature Area" also struck me as odd, and I recall a few years back, digging through the city's website for any mention of those names but not finding any. And I recall mentioning it, but not going further because it's not really my specialty.

Alerted by the bot...

That's not the way to do this. Please see
osm.wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

The opposite is better. Merging identical street segments allows renderers to draw the name if it requires more length than a single block, eg medium zooms. When split, you see the name much less often.