Oh, this one didn't do parking tags, because I wasn't entirely sure about them

Hey, osm.org/way/1414000295 still has access=private here, I'm assuming that's an error?

So I think there's two questions:

- What was meant in your edit?
- What should be tagged in OSM?

An OpenStreetMap preset project has included "City of Toronto" and Q172 when a park operator is entered as something like "City of Toronto" since 2022:

https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/commit/94b011c05ef797394d6d1fabc284baab9425eeea#diff-c595cdb591d97a91e00711537f90e3c1b3418df99ffab545e5a6a66ed65ed1eeR2111

These tags will gradually roll out to Toronto parks as they are edited in OSM and the presets are accepted by editors. Some of the parks are already tagged, e.g. osm.org/way/9153060

Specifying operator=City of Toronto and not:wikidata:operator=Q172 means, in OSM speak, that the operator is the City of Toronto, but it's not the same City of Toronto as indicated by https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q172 (which is Wikidata for "Toronto"). Possibly this happened by mistake or misunderstanding here. But that's why I asked.

If it's a standard city park, the resolution is likely to change the tag not:wikidata:operator=Q172 to wikidata:operator=Q172

Hey, this edit mapped the park as operator=City of Toronto and not:operator:wikidata=Q172, where Q172 is the Wikidata entry for Toronto. So is the park operated by the City or not? Or did you mean that the operator is the municipal government Toronto rather than the general "Toronto city"?

Or if based on your survey these are not suitable or allowed for bicycle use, can you discuss with DaveTO in one of those changesets, like osm.org/changeset/135488466 ?

Did you see the changeset comments when they were created?

"The sidewalks on Allen Rd between Sheppard Ave and Transit Rd are asphalt, clearly meant to act as a multiuse pathway or as a protected bike lane. Thus, I am tagging them as paths so that navigation apps can take advantage of them. " osm.org/way/1166193150/history/2

" Based on street-level photos, it is apparent that the asphalt "sidewalks" alongside Allen Rd between Sheppard Ave and Transit Rd are meant to act as one-way multiuse paths shared by cyclists and pedestrians. Allen Rd itself allows bikes until Transit Rd. " osm.org/way/1166193150/history/3

You changed them to sidewalk tagging but that excludes bicycles again

Ah I see now that the access=yes tag is newer, thanks.

... although all roads leading to here are access=private... ah well

Hello ine63,

These changesets are being discussed on the Community Forum due to questions about the tags used (meaning of "retail shops") and potential license issues. Can you contribute, in English or in Korean? https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/recent-import-introduced-new-tag-amenity-retail-shops-in-seoul/131657

Thank you!

Hi, this changeset deleted a parking node tagged access=private and surface=unpaved and didn't add these tags to the parking way (which is still access=yes), is this an error?

Hey, nice job mapping up in Richmond Hill! Just wanted to mention that postal codes of buildings and other points are more commonly tagged as addr:postcode=*.

postal_code=* is more commonly used for tagging streets or towns in cases where a whole street or town is in the same postal code (less common in Canada due to A1A 1A1-format postal codes being much more granular)

Hello, can you comment why you upgraded this section of road?

also the primary source was actually survey! But aerial imagery confirms it

Oops pressed Enter and uploaded too soon. Changeset message continued: "I'm not sure if the sidewalk mapped on west side of Garrison Road is still there, it's not visible in aerial imagery, I'll have to resurvey"

Per the above, I have now removed the tactile_paving=yes tags added by you in this area in osm.org/changeset/167374082

I marked the sidewalk and cycleway as disused:highway=* here since they might be physically removed or pretty beat up and thus arguably aren't a sidewalk right now. I kept the roadway as highway=residential because it is still a street, just closed to general traffic - trucks use it for construction

Undeleting the ways allows keeping history, see osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

Hello,

Thank you for your OSM contributions in Toronto!

When editing in an area you are not familiar with, I would encourage you to check OSM history before deleting features. In this changeset, you have deleted a crossing which was built in 2024 and which I added following survey (with a changeset comment specifying that it's per survey). I had to manually re-add it in osm.org/changeset/167227001

Thanks!

The key `tc` has now been documented: osm.wiki/Key:tc

Tagging `aeroway=aerodrome` + `abandoned=yes` seems problematic to me, probably it should be something like `abandoned:aeroway=aerodrome`? See osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Hello,

Thank you for your interest in bike infrastructure in OpenStreetMap!

Just wanted to confirm - are you aware of the CyclOSM and Cycle Map views on osm.org? You can see them through the Layers switcher on the right, or here are direct URLs to see this area:
- osm.org/#map=17/43.664484/-79.425262&layers=Y
- osm.org/#map=17/43.664484/-79.425262&layers=C

In particular, the counterflow bike lanes (and the fact that the streets are two-way for bikes) are displayed on those maps, as are other features like bike tracks.

The way to mark up counterflow lanes in OSM is detailed here: osm.wiki/Key:cycleway#Bicycle_infrastructure_in_one-way_roads . Shaw Street is already marked up such and can be seen on the bike map layers. If you use bicycle directions on osm.org the routers should also know about the counterflow lanes and be able to use them.

We cannot have the bike lane which is separated only by paint as a separate way, because in OSM separate ways are only used when there is physical separation like curbs or traffic islands (and for some of those, like bike tracks like on Bloor, separate ways are not required and it's often easier not to have them).

Let me know if you have any questions!

Thanks,
--Jarek

Hi hhcfw,

I noticed you have edited in Charlotte County and elsewhere in New Brunswick, including this edit in St. Stephen back in 2019.

I'm hoping you can provide input as a local New Brunswick mapper:

The city has been renamed to "Saint Stephen" in OSM a couple of years ago. As far as I can tell, this was not done by a New Brunswick mapper. Is the local usage "Saint Stephen", "St. Stephen", or mixed?

I noticed that your change left the name spelled St. Stephen while you also edited Saint Andrews nearby - is this indicative of the local usage, or more of an accident?

If you wish you may also comment on the OSM forum where I asked about this: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/st-stephen-new-brunswick-or-saint-stephen/130485

Thanks!
Jarek

This was done earlier today (before noon EDT) but didn't upload - reuploaded now