in osm.org/changeset/60696107 korrigiert

Hallo,

osm.org/way/552943235/history landuse=residential fuer Herzberg/Vulkan/Siegfried/Josef-Orlopp-Strasse-Block? Erst nach 20 Jahren mehr Gentrifizierung...

Tippfehler?

Hi - you've added a business in Dallas, but placed it in a residential neighbourhood in St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. I have removed it in osm.org/changeset/59915755 - if you would like to re-add it, please make sure to put it in the correct spot in Dallas.

Hm, the best places I can think of for the discussion would be talk-ca mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca or maybe tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging though then you have to account for worldwide usage

There is forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ but the Canadian section is dead and I don't see a good tagging section, and the wiki discussions always seem mixed at best...

But, the Lansdowne example showcases the problem, doesn't it?

When you draw a separate sidewalk without a crossing, on Lansdowne it means that crossing is not permitted or safe or sometimes physically possible. But your method would have the same tag of sidewalk without a crossing mean that crossing is allowed everywhere at Galley and Sorauren.

How could a router do this without a ruleset that specifies that for example tertiary roads can be crossed but secondary roads cannot? Such a ruleset would have to be Ontario-specific as elsewhere primary and trunk tags are used for the kind of road that we see on Lansdowne. (London, England has many narrow, slow streets tagged primary that are much safer to cross than the average Toronto avenue.) Isn't it easier to just use a tagging scheme that doesn't require routers guessing?

I also don't see a problem with mapping a perpendicular path to centerline, especially with the sidewalk is not mapped in the first place. Slip roads are mapped to centerline (osm.org/way/23000751) without much controversy.

Yes indeed there are many different ways to map these. I assume you've seen osm.wiki/Sidewalks#How_to_map ?

My interpretation would be that the OSM way for these roads is symbolic anyway (it goes down the centre of the roadway, doesn't specify width, etc - Toronto doesn't use osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area ), so adding symbolic sidewalk information (e.g. sidewalk=both, sidewalk:width=1 m) on the road ways in cases of "simple" sidewalks should be fine.

If I may: adding the new ways doesn't seem to me to add much value and creates some problems for routers having to guess where jumping between ways/crossing streets is possible, or guessing names of sidewalks from names of nearby street (to instruct "walk south on Sorauren Avenue" rather than "walk south on this unnamed sidewalk").

But of course if you're keen on continuing then do go on, it's an open project.

Hey Nate. Thanks for adding the detail. When you draw sidewalks, please take care to link them to the roads at intersections. The ways must cross and have a common node. Otherwise the routers get confused as to how people can go, and you get results like these: https://i.imgur.com/rSBmDUU.png

Hi! Thank you for following up on this and providing on-the-ground information for open hours. I amended the information slightly in osm.org/changeset/58552581 as there exists a specific syntax that can encode the access in a computer-readable format - see OSM wiki osm.wiki/Key:opening_hours and osm.wiki/Conditional_restrictions - it's a bit complicated and not easy to find so no worries - getting the information in the first place is the hard part :)

Thanks again for helping with OSM!

Source is edits and comments of Gerard Butler, in particular changesets 58369377 and 57446369; see also osm.org/note/590023 for back-story.

Hallo, crossing=zebra ist nicht im osm.wiki/DE:Key:crossing ?

Radstraße in osm.org/changeset/56580647 wieder angepasst

Teraz chyba wszystko jest w porządku. Dziękujemy :)

Rico, na mapie osm.org/way/277203729 nadal kiepsko wygląda - możesz spojrzeć jeszcze raz?

Hallo haudegen07,

mit der Radstrasse osm.org/way/28757494/history ist etwas schlecht gegangen, oder?

Hello,

MAPS.ME is adding the points you create (e.g. "Allison and Jacy's House" in Salem) to the public map on the web at osm.org/node/5331466721 - this one as a tourist attraction. I'm guessing their house isn't actually a public attraction. Can you double-check the MAPS.ME settings to see if it's possible to configure it not to submit these points to MAPS.ME?

Thanks,
--Jarek

Source: in-person survey 2018-01-08

Hello,

Your edit has added a tourist attraction called "My Son" outside Lowell MA to the publicly visible web map on www.openstreetmap.org (see osm.org/node/5219640321 ). Did you mean to do this? If not, we can undo it.

I did as specified -> osm.org/changeset/52923335

Hello,

I went through the Moritzplatz station in person, noted all the directions signed for the exits (e.g. "Oranienstraße, Stallschreiberstraße"), and added them to the railway=subway_entrance nodes (e.g. osm.org/node/3844466997/history) in osm.org/changeset/52389086

In this edit, you changed all eight of them to identical name=U-Bhf Moritzplatz

If nothing else, the most prominent signs above the entrances read "U Moritzplatz", not "U-Bhf Moritzplatz".

Your own osm.wiki/MENTZ_GmbH/Modellierungsvorschl%C3%A4ge_Indoor#Entrance_of_a_train_station_or_an_open_station_area specifies "Name of the entrance, if available. NOT the name of the railway station"

osm.wiki/Tag:railway=subway%20entrance also notes "Name of the exit if is known. Not the name of the station"

Having 8 identically named entrances (sharing the name with the overall station) seems to me less useful than having 8 entrances with names corresponding to what is written on the walls in the subway station by these entrances. If you disagree, can you explain why? If not, I would like to undo this part of your change.

clickable: osm.org/changeset/50114659, osm.org/note/1055703