Thank you very much. I was going for high accuracy in the shapes using JOSM and the available Bing imagery.

Hi there, thanks for the comment. Looking at it, my changes were only for the alignment of the nodes in the building and such. I tried not to change the doors or the like as I am unable to see what is just a roof versus what is a wall. Entrances can be tricky. For OpenStreetMap, to correct this, those roof portion need to be mapped individually as attached to the building and the entrance node moved back to the wall of the building. Again, I don't know what part is the roof alone.

If you know to correct it, I would appreciate it!

Thanks!

Adam

I assume you are correct. I was correcting issues with shapes and connections. IF you know that this is the name (which seems logical when we consider the identical road to the south), then ensure that the map reflects that. I was unsure.

Thanks!

Adam

Hi Mike,

If you look through the change set itself, the only 'autovalidator' changes made here were simple upgrades to tags. These were checked to ensure that what was added was expansions to the tags and not removals or fundamental changes. The bulk of the changes I make are area refinements to ways - the sort that smooths out hard right angles on curved highway segments.

That said, I am:
1. Very aware that iD ain't perfect and do not make changes it suggests lightly.
2. Like many editors, no I am not local to these areas, but if someone wants to further refine something, they are welcome to do so.
3. Aware that refinements and corrections like this are often considered 'beneath' a lot of editors, but need to be done.

I appreciate the concern, but I have been doing this for some time and I try like hell not to hurt anything present. I have backed away from most of the changes that the editor suggests, relying on keepright mostly. But if simple business tags are that big a deal, I'll ignore those as well.

Adam

Oh yes. I make sure to try and keep an eye on them. Some seem odd and I leaned my lesson about corrections a good time ago. Thanks for that page though - very interesting

Thanks!

Adam

Oh yes, local knowledge always trumps my aerial eyes, as it were. iD Editor identified that the cycleway and the railway were crossing , but did not have appropriate tagging / structure to do so. I added what 'looked' reasonable from the imagery. Please update to the actual structure - I am in no way married to any of my change sets. The net result will still be an appropriate correction to the map! :)

Thanks!

Adam

Good day, Dr. Kludge.

I understand what you mean, but I did not change the bridges to tunnels. iD identified that the intermittent waterways were crossing the roadways without anything indication as to how they crossed (bridge or tunnel). I selected what appeared to be reasonable at that moment. If your local knowledge indicates that it should be the other way around, then please update it. The map will be better and the errors will still be corrected.

Thanks,

Adam

Hey Abruzzzo!

Thanks for the concern. I am being picky with what I'm doing and not doing. Most of the things I am focusing on are updating tags that are flagged as out-of-date (especially bus stops). Here in Thunder Bay, I've also corrected some of the building imprints that had multiple redundant points. I don't generally re-position the buildings or ways unless they are crossing - then I do my best to fix it based on the satellite data available. I'll switch between the different sources in iD just to be sure I'm not changing anything in a strange manner.

But thanks for the concern. I always listen to comments about the changes and attempt to correct anything I might get wrong. I try not to go blind with them and avoid the more involved "fixme" requests unless I know I can actually help. For that, I use JOSM to ensure everything looks good.

On another note, Thunder Bay seems to have gotten a building import of some sort. The talk-ca mailing list has been a-buzz with talk about properly doing that. Looks like it worked fairly well here.

Cheers!

Adam

Ahhh. I see I see. iD ain't the smartest with relations. Thanks for the help!

Adam

Quick update - in trying to return these to 'Stop', iD editor is adamant that the tag is outdated. According to the Public_Transport webpage on the wiki, Stop_position is used on lines where the vehicle stops, but "Stop" is no longer used at all. Instead, "Station" is preferred for points like these. Not sure which way to go with it. Since these areas already have stop positions correctly positioned on the ways making up the rails, perhaps the tag should be removed as redundant from this point?

Hi Alexey! Happy New Year.

I was going over the errors identified by the iD editor and that was one of the corrections that it mentioned. I looked at the page you suggested and it states that public_transport=station can be correct, but I have no horse in the race. If stop is more accurate, I'm good with that. I'll revert that change.

Cheers!
Adam

Thanks for this - I was not aware. :)

I'll try to correct thees in the by and by and will make sure I use it in the future. Thanks again!

This information was traced from Bing imagry. As much of the area is a Trailer Park, the exact composition of houses may change, but this is accurate until someone performs on the ground mapping in the area.