piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
bigbug21 (2021-12-24 14:07:49+00:00): Danke, PT-53, für den Hinweis. Habe mir das eben mal angeschaut und versucht, auch mittels https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/68740/how-to-remove-hidden-nonop-tag-from-line-or-route zu entschlüsseln. Offenbar stößt sich der OSM-Inspector jeweils daran, dass das zwei physisch vorhandene Objekte sind, die außer Betrieb sind. Mir ist unklar, welches Tag hier unangebracht sein sollte. Links ist das "disused" zutreffend, es ist ein physisch noch vorhandenes, aber nicht mehr in Betrieb befindliches Stellwerk. Beim rechten Objekt -- dem Bahnsteig -- könnte "access=no" der Anstoß sein, aber auch das trifft zu (disused ist hier nicht gesetzt). Weißt du weiter?
PT-53 (2021-12-24 14:30:59+00:00): Schau Dir mal die Wiki-Seite
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:disused:
durch.
Bei einem Stellwerk sollte statt
- railway=signal_box      +
- disused=yes
das Merkmal
- disused:railway=signal_box
verwendet werden.
Siehe auch
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway=signal%20box?uselang=de

Bei der Plattform
müßte dann wohl statt
 - public_transport=platform
- railway=platform   +
- construction=yes
die Merkmale
- construction:public_transport=plattform
- construction:railway=plattform
verwendet werden.

Siehe auch
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix
bigbug21 (2021-12-28 11:57:34+00:00): Ok, das ist entsprechend umgetagged. Das Tagging des Stellwerks kam aus der entsprechenden Vorlage und wurde nun manuell geändert. Beim Bahnsteig meckerte die Validierung etwas. Hoffe, es passt nun.
PT-53 (2021-12-29 09:02:45+00:00): Im OSM-Inspector wird heute dort kein Hinweis mehr angezeigt. Dann sollte es jetzt ja passen.

Danke und einen Guten Rutsch
◪ Jarv (2021-12-04 12:37:28+00:00): According to ESCC adopted road map, this is just a spur of Newton Road and not called New Road
https://escc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f1ebafa02f6746a39a693e7ead3ff1fb
Horza (2021-12-03 21:23:54+00:00): Hi!

Thanks for contributing to the map, but could you focus on making additions to relatively small areas? Your other changesets seem good in terms of scale

Thanks,
Horza
plennert (2022-12-16 12:12:49+00:00): Hallo,

woher stammt die Angabe "opening_hours" = 24/7? Die Gebäude sind Nachts teils/mehrheitlich geschlossen und der AED somit nicht erreichbar. der access-tag wäre somit auch zu überprüfen.

source=?

Fragende Grüsse
chnuessli (2022-12-18 12:18:00+00:00): Ich nehme an du passierst diese Zollstelle öfters. Ich gehe davon aus dass diese 24/7 besetzt ist. Anderweits darfst du gerne eine Korrektur an dieser Node anbringen.

Merci für deine Mithilfe!
andrewsuzuki (2024-07-30 20:51:13+00:00): Hi, I've noticed in many places you've changed surface=earth or surface=dirt to surface=ground. But according to the wiki, earth/dirt is a specific type of ground; ground can also be grass, sand, clay, etc. So the more specific tags are preferred.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface=ground
btwhite92 (2021-12-05 21:08:31+00:00): Hello,
Has ground broken on the entire area under the way? This site as it is tagged is pretty enormous. 'landuse=construction' should only be used where construction has actually broken ground and not where it is planned to take place eventually.
Bradley
sparrow980 (2021-12-06 18:04:27+00:00): Hi Bradley, I could use your assistance/ advice. The over arching project is FivePoint and there are 8 sub projects taking place inside it. Two projects are taking place now with the other 6 having utilities and land grading taking place.
archpdx (2022-08-05 17:17:35+00:00): Hi,
Thanks for adding these new streets! Please note however that we don't use abbreviations for road names in OpenStreetMap (see https://wiki.osm.org/abbreviation). For example, https://osm.org/way/1008966239 should be 'Daybreak Court' instead of 'Daybreak Ct'
canfe (2022-01-23 18:04:41+00:00): Per il telefono non va usato il punto come separatore
nurdafur (2023-11-20 11:44:50+00:00): Hi mcompte

I stumpled over this route. You changed it from route=bicycle to route=cycling.
In my opinion it should be route=bicycle.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-12-16 13:01:50+00:00): نرجوا منكم عدم إضافة أمكان عشوائية للخريطة
dns10 (2021-12-04 04:39:43+00:00): 🙇‍♂️🙇‍♂️
skorasaurus (2021-12-04 22:55:09+00:00): Thanks! 

There are probably up to dozen more along lorain ave from kamm's corner (at rocky river drive) to W117th; someone (or I) would need to just to make a dedicated trip to doing it... the streetscape improvements that they did in the past couple years included them.
eggie (2021-12-03 22:08:38+00:00): Welkom bij OSM..
Alleen een naam zal niets doen in OSM..
Kijk anders even hier..
Eigen bedrijf toevoegen 

https://www.onosm.org/ 

en 

 

https://osmybiz.osm.ch/#/11/46.87897/8.23975 

 

En video 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6edDUi1o9RA 

 MVG
eggie
ameziol (2021-12-04 19:30:12+00:00): dwuśladowe*, boże, dwukołowy to jest rower
felipeeugenio (2021-12-26 01:49:46+00:00): Hola. El ultimo segmento de Dagoberto Godoy lo pasaron a sentido único al sur? Como entra la gente entonces al suburbio? creo que se trata de un error. por favor revisar. Mientras tanto lo voy a dejar como estaba.
saludos
jackripper1 (2021-12-26 02:45:56+00:00): Hola. Tienes razón, un error de mi parte. Gracias por corregirlo. Saludos.
felipeeugenio (2021-12-26 12:11:38+00:00): Vale. saludos
Marc_ch (2023-04-02 14:31:04+00:00): Bonjour,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9309583399
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3878907708
que représente ces noeuds d'interconnections entre plusieurs lignes électriques en dehors du poteau ?
Salutations,
Marc
Mashin (2021-12-04 01:31:58+00:00): Hi! Welcome and thanks for contributing to OSM!
Just a question, what is the source of these trail names? Official documents for the state park don't mention any of those names.
SwKurtz (2021-12-04 01:38:21+00:00): These names come from NEMBA. They are the ones who built the trails I added. Here is a link to where the trail names are. http://www.fcnemba.org/fc-mtnbikingmaps/huntington/trailmaps/printmaps/huntingtontrails.htm
Mashin (2021-12-04 02:20:59+00:00): Interesting. Thanks for the link.
Are those names also officially recognized by CT DEEP? I know I was there a few years back and I don't remember seeing trail names posted.

I was just wondering if loc_name=* would be more appropriate in this case.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name#Variants
SwKurtz (2021-12-04 02:35:13+00:00): Loc_name should work just fine. I will swap the names over to their now.
Mashin (2021-12-04 03:03:51+00:00): OK. 
Thanks again for contributing!
andrewsuzuki (2022-08-04 05:13:13+00:00): Hi SwKurtz, as Mashin said thanks for getting all the trails in Huntington. I noticed you used Bing Imagery, which I use all the time because it's fairly up to date, but the downside is that you usually can't see anything on the ground in the woods. I'd recommend using Esri World Imagery next time, which often lets you see the trails on the ground quite well (at least in this part of CT). Then you'll have a nice point of reference for your GPX file. I'm saying this because I noticed the trails you added are sometimes bit off from reality (see screenshot here with strava heatmap overlaid  https://i.imgur.com/DpMBbsD.png).
ovruni (2021-12-05 22:34:38+00:00): Hola "miller aldair", gracias por contribuir a OSM. He notado que en este conjunto de cambios que contiene el texto "casas actualizadas" se ha retirado etiqueta de escuela, eliminado un parque, generado vías superpuestas de vía de ferrocarril con una avenida, agregado un bosque y parques ficticios, intersectado un bolardo con una avenida. Por favor revise la documentación sobre los buenos comentarios en conjuntos de cambios. [0] Por otra parte, el uso de abreviaturas (como  Jr.) se encuentra desaconsejado. Si tiene alguna duda sobre el mapeo de OSM en Perú, puede hacerla por el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Good_changeset_comments
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Abreviaturas_.28no_hacer_esto.29
abakus_uploader (2021-12-03 23:33:53+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
abakus_uploader (2021-12-04 23:31:05+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
aweech (2021-12-04 15:14:19+00:00): Hi,
In this edit, you deleted several water features and an entire golf course. Please be aware that deleting things that are real is not appropriate behavior, and the original versions will be restored. Features should be modified rather than deleted in most cases.
gscholz (2021-12-08 06:20:23+00:00): Hi EduRBS,
this changeset has destroyed the boundary relations of "Barra do Garças" and "Nova Xavantina":

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-52.52946&lat=-15.05028&zoom=9

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114540770

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
EduRBS (2021-12-08 16:14:31+00:00): Fixed, sorry. Please, may you check it?
gscholz (2021-12-09 05:57:44+00:00): Hi EduRBS, 
thanks for your response. The relation for "Nova Xavantina" had an error but I fixed it. The boundaries seem to be not the same as before.
Guido
NieWnen (2023-01-21 13:59:44+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3526522
NorthCrab (2023-02-12 07:14:49+00:00): Witaj, wyżej została załączona notatka dot. twojej zmiany. Mógłbyś rzucić okiem?
mariotomo (2021-12-06 19:17:20+00:00): hola. necesitas ayuda? tienes a alguien que te asesore? acabas de añadir a un 'waterway=stream' una etiqueta "layer=1", que pone la quebrada al mismo nivel que los puentes que cruzan la quebrada.  sin tu edición, los puentes pasaban arriba, ahora no. por favor aprovecha de la ayuda que te se ofrece.
mariotomo (2021-12-13 01:34:48+00:00): hi. did you understand my above comment? do you intend to fix the mistake yourself? again, do you need help? are you mapping on your own this time?
Mashin (2021-12-04 17:09:22+00:00): Hi,
thanks for the trail data. Just a comment on those trail names. "Dirty Dancing", "Slap Happy".. that doesn't look like an official name that CT DEEP would use. More appropriate I think would be to use loc_name=*

Also trails (particularly those that are marked) are mapped as relations and so the name of the trail is not added duplicately on the path itself.
Both Nehatic and Pachaug trail have relations 11257426, 4783347.
Greg_Rose (2021-12-04 18:13:36+00:00): Hey there, thanks for the input!
Yeah - undoubtedly those are not named by CT-DEEP, and are probably unsanctioned/informal trails. BUT since they haven't updated their own maps for 12-13 years (wtf?!?), and so far have been unresponsive in my attempts to get some clarification on a bunch of trail issues, I'm unable to come to any conclusion so far - so I didn't use 'loc-name=' as that is only used when you have more than one name for a trail. I don't suppose you have an in with someone over at CT-DEEP?
As for the naming of trails with relations, very few data users populate trail names from relations. In fact, of OSM's own renderings, ZERO of the 6 (well... 5... I'm not sure what's up with ÖPNVKarte - not certain it even works anymore) insert highway names from relations! As a result, all of the Pachaug, Nehantic and Quinebaug segments here are unlabeled on every downstream MaaS site that I know of (but if there's a data user that DOES render names from relations please let me know!)  

As a result, the duplicity rule does not apply to highway relations as it does to water feature relations. If you have a wiki article you can point me to that says otherwise, please forward to me so I can set things straight!

Greatly appreciate the feedback though - especially since you're local! Do you know if there's a significant amount of xc skiing that goes on there in winter? Trying to decide whether to mark some of these trails for nordic ski access.

-Greg
Mashin (2021-12-05 03:09:11+00:00): I don't have any direct contacts there, but if they don't respond to emails then the best is to call. They can't dodge you like that. I am not into cross-country skiing, but I'd say if it's not prohibited then it's allowed.

loc_name just means local name it doesn't mean that there must be a name tag. Looking at it from a rigorous perspective, when you were there, did you notice any signs or maps with those names?

General agreement is that we add the names only to the route relation, because it is not the name of the path but the name of the route that can even go over named residential roads, which have name of their own.
Rendering the name from the relation is not really difficult so if some map does not show them it's for a purpose. If maps would render only text from operator tag would we start adding trail names there?

Names of routes are shown for e.g. by [Mapy.cz](https://en.mapy.cz/turisticka?x=-72.2098595&y=41.8635217&z=15), [Waymarked trails](https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=11038937&map=11!41.9103!-72.1733) in details section, [OsmAnd app](https://osmand.net/), [Thunderforest](https://www.thunderforest.com/maps/outdoors/),...
marczoutendijk (2021-12-06 13:10:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114618626 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism with fantasy names and locations.
user_2066394 (2021-12-04 09:56:50+00:00): https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/4104548776

"Dorf" wäre aber offiziell Gemeindeteil oder war die Position falsch?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeon-Seebruck
woody-soft (2021-12-04 11:58:40+00:00): Als ehemaliger Seebrucker hätte ich jetzt das Zentrum von Seebruck nicht hinterm Brausamhof vermutet. Vielleicht eher da, wo der Maibaum steht. Aber generell kenn ich keinen, der den Ort Seebruck selbst, noch zusätzlich mit dem Ortsteil "Dorf" titulieren oder kennzeichnen würde.
Und ist nicht jedes Dorf per se ein Dorf?
user_2066394 (2021-12-04 12:01:59+00:00): Wie oben geschrieben "Dorf" war als Einöde eingetragen.
place=hamlet
name=Dorf
Wo liegt das Teil richtig?
woody-soft (2021-12-05 10:07:58+00:00): Nochmal: Seebruck ist von Haus aus ein Dorf, daher ist eine Markierung  "Dorf" sinnlos, und ne Einöde ist es auch nicht.  Daher war der Place schlicht unnötig.
Es ist generell unüblich, jede Ansiedlung nochmals als "Dorf" zu kennzeichnen.
user_2066394 (2021-12-05 10:27:03+00:00): Das wird nicht deutlich. Schau mal nochmal hier rein:
https://dewiki.de/Lexikon/Seeon-Seebruck
Wo liegt dieser Gemeindeteile Dorf?
woody-soft (2021-12-05 11:13:16+00:00): Himmel.. Wo liegt das Dorf "Seebruck" ? Genau da wo die Kirche ist.  Wenn du das extra kennzeichnen willst, bitte dann lass den Quatsch drin.
user_2066394 (2021-12-05 11:27:59+00:00): Es geht nicht um das Dorf Seebruck. Es geht um den offiziellen Gemeindeteil "Dorf" in der Gemeindegliederung seeon-Seebruck.
woody-soft (2021-12-05 11:37:17+00:00): Doch, darum geht es. Der "Ortsteil Dorf" ist nun mal das Dorf Seebruck, wie es der Name impliziert. Und das ist eben da, wo die Kirche ist. Also gehört da der Marker hin.
marczoutendijk (2021-12-06 13:11:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114618626 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism with fantasy names and locations.
AngocA (2021-12-10 21:48:56+00:00): Living streets do not exist in Colombia
JLOSM (2021-12-27 23:13:36+00:00): Gracias por recordarrmelo, al igual que por tu corrección.
mariotomo (2021-12-05 17:50:20+00:00): hola. podrías volver a describir este conjunto de cambios? "revisión de etiquetas", pero hay casi 100 nuevos elementos de tipo "way". parece una importación.
attili1 (2021-12-06 09:11:34+00:00): Hi Athilla08,

Trust you are doing well and welcome to OpenStreetMap. While mapping in Indonesia we observed that you have added a lot of building polygons which does not seem to reflect on the ground reality and should be avoided mapping on OpenStreetMap. We are reverting these changesets and please do not hesitate to reach out to us for any questions.

We know it’s often scary for a beginner to map in OSM, please visit the OSM beginner’s guide/learnOSM to learn best mapping practices. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide , https://learnosm.org/ or reach out to us for more questions. 

Happy Mapping!
Manoj
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114542709
mariotomo (2021-12-05 17:45:18+00:00): hola. escribes "revisión de etiquetas", pero osmcha dice »No tags were changed in this changeset.«
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114542723
mariotomo (2022-07-25 13:58:32+00:00): partially reverted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/123815810
b-holdet (2022-01-02 16:18:44+00:00): Hej Ernst,

Når du lægge farmlands ind, kan du så ikke undgå at klistre dem til åer og veje? 
Det er fint nok at du lægger dem sammen i skel, men åer og veje er uafhængig af farmlands grænse.
Når man retter eks. å-løbene, så kommer farmland til at følge den forkerte grænse.
Ligeså med veje, når man ændrer på farmlands udbredelse og forløb.

Med ønske om et godt nytår
Ernst Poulsen (2022-01-02 16:45:22+00:00): Som grundregel prøver jeg altid at undgå at farmlands/landbrug hænger sammen med især veje, men også gårde, etc. Hvis du finder eksempler på at de er klæbet sammen er det uheld og du kan blot ændre det. (Jeg prøver selv at rette, når jeg falder over det).

De fleste åer/grøfter har en smalt/bredt eng-område rundt om, så de ganske rigtigt ikke skal klæbes sammen. Men i nogle få lavtliggende områder går landbrugsområdet helt ned til kanten. Her giver det vel mening? Eller?

Kan se du tegner orienteringskort. Hvilken klub løber / tegner du for?

Jeg har tegnet en smule sprintkort for AMOK (Amager OK).
Ernst Poulsen (2022-01-02 16:52:20+00:00): I øvrigt: Jeg synes noget af det svære på OSM er at lave en konsistent skillelinje mellem hhv. landbrug / eng / vådområde. 

Det er lidt en løbende overgang, hvor jeg plejer at skifte mellem osm og Google for at finde det rette snit.
b-holdet (2022-01-02 16:53:33+00:00): Jeg retter de farmlands jeg støder på  undervejs, men jeg tror også at ID-editoren er glad for at samle punkter.
Kanalen i området her er ret tydelig og man kan ikke komme helt ned til kanten med maskiner.
En god ide er at lade å-løbene følge deres eget spor. Det gør det noget lettere at rette dem med editorerne. De har det med at tage fat i de forkerte objekter, når man vælger med dem.

Jo, jeg løber og tegner kort for OK Djurs nu. 
Inden da har jeg tegnet for Allerød OK og Farum OK. Et enkelt DM-kort over Brødeskov er det da blevet til og rettelser til Gribskov for SpringCup har jeg da også lavet. 
;-)
marczoutendijk (2021-12-04 10:56:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114550822 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism of user adding new highways on top of existing ones.
user_10360149 (2021-12-04 03:35:17+00:00): STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING！
adamh (2021-12-04 06:18:26+00:00): 2 Questions. 
Where are you sourcing the information for the location and nature of this historical (and now non-existent) rail infrastructure, as there's no source attribution?
Given this rail infrastructure isn't visible on the ground any more and has been completely removed, shouldn't it be removed from the map?
Supt_of_Printing (2021-12-04 06:42:57+00:00): Hi, I have made the changes based on an aerial photo of when these sidings were still in place that popped up on a historical railway Facebook page, so I don't know the original source.

As for the value in mapping them, although they don't show up on OpenStreetMaps as being former rail infrastructure, they do show up as an overlay on OpenRailwayMaps as being abandoned railway infrastructure, which is helpful for people interested in identifying former railway routes.
Regards,
Supt.
Supt_of_Printing (2021-12-04 06:46:03+00:00): And one further point, I didn't create this, it was already there, rather, I just edited it to be more accurate. 

BTW, the original turntable is still there.
catdreamer (2021-12-04 08:47:31+00:00): 找一個在地認可常用的山頭名稱，其他用alt_name
mueschel (2021-12-05 09:49:33+00:00): Hi,
please check this area, it got a huge number of strange tags:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29743783
TomPar (2021-12-05 15:02:54+00:00): Thanks for the catch.  An inadvertent change.  Fixed.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of parcels with these types of tags from a MassGIS import a decade ago.  Have been slowly cleaning it up.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MassGIS_Import_Tag_Cleanup_2013
marczoutendijk (2021-12-04 10:57:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114550822 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism of user adding new highways on top of existing ones.
yadathot (2021-12-04 05:28:47+00:00): Edited access tag as per Driver feedback.
marczoutendijk (2021-12-04 10:57:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114550822 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism of user adding new highways on top of existing ones.
eggie (2021-12-04 07:34:11+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback.. Scherp gezien. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Kaarttearder (2021-12-04 08:51:58+00:00): Tankjewol, kaartmakker. Ik sil der ris yndûke. Myn namme betsjut oars 'kaartvouwer', en dat jout myn nivo op dit stuit ek wol oan. M.f.g.
eggie (2021-12-04 09:00:05+00:00): Elkenien wie eartiids in begjinner   :)
DENelson83 (2021-12-04 06:56:08+00:00): In case you are wondering why it looks like part of the St. Lawrence Estuary has "dried up", it is because the coastline has been extended in this area, and it will take a bit of time for the coastline rendering routine in the OSM-Carto tiles to catch up to this.
PierZen (2022-02-28 20:36:08+00:00): Vous avez modifié le polygone de l'Estuaire moyen en le faisant teminer avant Rivière-du-Loup. Tel que documenté dans wikipedia, cet estuaire se prolonge jusqu'à Point-des-Monts à la jonction avec l'Estuaire maritime.

Pourriez-vous svp réparer?
DENelson83 (2022-02-28 20:56:45+00:00): Sorry, but that would cut the area with that name into two parts.  The Chenal du Nord and Chenal du Sud are in the way.  I use a guideline called "one point, one name" when naming bodies of seawater, and I have an additional guideline that says that a body of seawater with a single name cannot be cut into two disjoint areas.
PierZen (2022-02-28 21:13:04+00:00): Je ne vois rien dans la discussion sur Talk-ca qui vous permettait de décider de réviser des objets tels que les estuaires et ajouter ce que vous appellez one point - one name. Svp,  remettre comme avant, sinon discutez de vos modifications sur talk-ca