I've retagged it as `access=no` and `bus=yes`, but I think this is less clear than simply calling it a busway. I also fixed the turn restriction that you had broken.

I'd like to give you a chance to respond, but it is unwise to have this mapped as if it is publicly accessible. Why do you think `busway` is inappropriate for the connection between Main Street northbound and E 8th, when it is only accessible to buses?

It would be helpful if you added source tags to your changesets. You can see I've tagged my changeset source as "Survey".

This road is only accessible to buses.

I've been past a few times since the block of Broadway closed, and there's always been not just signage in place prohibiting private cars from turning left from Main Street to 8th, but also a police officer in place to ensure compliance with this. At a bare minimum the section of 8th connecting the north and south bound parts of Main Street should be tagged `access=no` and `bus=yes`, but that sounds a lot like a busway to me, even if it's unusually short.

In your opinion why is this not a busway? Are you just thinking about historial use? The fact that the block of Broadway will be closed for at least 4 months makes it worthwhile to map the changes.

I checked again today, and the left turn lane that connects with 8th is still only accessible to buses, and a police officer is on site to ensure the turn restriction is followed. I believe keeping this as a busway is appropriate.

I've fixed the 8th and Quebec re-routing that this edit broke. I think it would be helpful for foreign mappers to be more cautious about assuming that local mappers are wrong, based solely on imagery, especially imagery that is not publicly accessible.

Currently all traffic from Quebec is routed onto 8th, and vice versa. There are large concrete barriers separating the traffic, so mapping as separate ways is appropriate.

This will be in place for at least 4 months, and it is getting plenty of attention from local mappers, so I do not expect there to be any problem with it being updated as the SkyTrain construction continues.

Can you confirm that the stairs have been removed in reality, not just public access prohibited?

I'm impressed by how quick you gotten this newly opened bicycle path mapped. And I've noticed other spots you've gotten quickly too. Thanks!

Oh, right! I'd been thinking of going by motorcycle or bicycle, but that would depend who I go with, so that's good to know!

Cool, thanks for the additional info. I'd love to get out there, if I do, and they have the times posted, I'll update the node, but I'm not sure I'll be able to. It's dependant on how the nice weather lines up with me days off.

I see you removed the `access=private` tag from the gate on Quarry Road with this edit, but kept the `locked=yes` tag. And you removed the `access=private` tag from Quarry Road too.

What is the situation on the ground? If it's accessible to the public now? If so I think we should remove the `locked=yes`tag from the gate, if the gate is locked by default it's surely not accessible to the public.

I passed by this location the other day, and it does not look like there is any construction here. At least nothing that I could see from Heather.

Are you sure that this block is under construction?

I do not think `railway=derail` is the correct tag to use here. Have you looked at the wiki's page on barriers? I think that would have a more appropriate tag.

Wow, fast work!

I've finished cleaning up the coastline, and finished fixing the relations that use the coastline.

One of the advantages of not using the low-tide line for the coastline, was that it made many small islands, like Box Island, part of Vancouver Island. My approach avoids this issue, and overall

While I agree that it can be unclear how far up the high tide line is, this changeset put the coastline on part of the beach that is clearly covered by the tide routinely. Based on your comments it seems like the old coastline was at the upper boundary of the beach. I think this is closer to the correct location than the lower boundary of the beach is, indeed the tide was higher than much of the mapped coastline in the current imagery. I've edited it to place the coastline on neither the lower boundary of the beach or the upper one, but to have it's own way between the two. I think this most closely represents reality, even if the exact geometry isn't verifiable.

There's still lots of work to do though, because I've only done some of the beaches, and this changeset left some relations for bays, and of Vancouver Island itself, on the upper boundary of the beach, rather than on the coastline, which really doesn't make sense.

I'll continue to work on the area, to make things more consistent, but it does seem like these edits were an example of mapping for the renderer.

What's up with the small grassy area you've mapped as a park? (Here: way/526675645/ )

Did you hear something about the ownership being transferred to the Vancouver Park Board, or are you just basing it on the satellite imagery? If it's the latter, I think it would be better to just map it as grass.

Could I get a more information about this? It looks like it is fictional, and made up with humorous intent.

Good job getting this edit done so close to the opening time!

Yes, my mistake, I've fixed it.

I added it from my phone, and on the small screen didn't notice the cafe had already been created. I also repositioned the old node, to place it within the building.

Thanks for fixing this. I am aware that Tso means lake, but "Tso Kar" was the only name I'd heard used for this settlement. May I ask where you got the name "Thukje" from?

That does not explain why you deleted the way that mapped what was beach. Did you follow the link to the way I linked to in my comment?